EGOISM   ^  ^  ^ 


'BY      J  A  M   E.   S        I.  ^ 


.mFmJ 


L  K    E-    Fc 


Tilffl 


•^*  f^*  «^»  f^*  «^* 

PLEASE  HANDLE 
WITH  CARE 

University  of 
Connecticut  Libraries 

f^»  «^*  »^^  *^^  f^» 


GAYLORD  RG 


^.CcA^z.^i^t>^ 


The  Philosophy 


ooo« 


Of  Egoism. 


— BY — 


JAMES  L.  WALKER 


My  nose  I've  nsed  for  smelling  and  I've  blown  it; 
But  how  to  prove  the  right  by  which  I  own  it? 

—Schiller,  freely  translated. 


KATHARINE  WALKER 

DENVER 

1905 


63 


PREFATORY  NOTE. 

The  first  chapters  of  this  booklet  appeared  serially  in 
"Egoism,"  a  little  magazine  published  by  Georgia  and 
Henry  Replogle,  at  Oakland,  Calif.,  from  1890  to  1898.    It 
was  the  intention  to  run  the  whole  series  in  the  magazine, 
then  publish  them  in  book  form  ;  but  pressure  upon  the  au- 
thor's time  interrupted  his  writing,  and  finally  "Egoism" 
suspended  publication  before  the  articles  were  completed. 
Later,  time  was  found  to  write  the  concluding  chapters,  and 
the  Replogles  put  the  whole  in  type  and  had  matrices  made 
from  which  to  cast  the  plates,  in  1900.    But  overtaken  by 
adversity  and  sickness,  the  matter  so  lingered  that  in  1904, 
when  the  author,  James  L,  Walker,  died,  the  work  had  pro- 
ceeded no  further. 

A  few  months  after  Mr.  Walker's  death,  Katharine 
Walker,  his  wife,  desiring  to  have  this  magnificent  monu- 
ment to  her  adored  husband's  memory  completed  without 
further  delay,  undertook  the  task  herself  by  providing  the 
necessary  money,  leaving  the  details  of  the  work  to  the  care 
of  the  Replogles.    However,  the  continued  illness  and  final 
death  of  Georgia  Replogle,  and  the  prostrate  condition  of 
Henry  Replogle  which  followed,  further  delayed  the  work  to 
this  date. 

It  was  one  of  the  ambitions  of  the  Replogles'  lives  to 
bring  this  booklet  to  the  Progressive  World  with  their  own 

A.  hands ;  especially  was  this  true  of  Georgia,  who,  although 

lying  on  the  bed  from  which  she  never  arose,  yielded  with 
the  greatest  reluctance  to  publication  of  the  inital  edition 
by  anyone  else.    In  this  connection,  Mrs.  Walker  earnestly, 
but  vainly,  begged  to  furnish  the  means,  and  keep  her  own 
participation  in  the  matter  entirely  private.    But  however 
kindly  meant,  this  was  not  just  the  desired  touch;   hoping 
against  conditions  of  palpable  despair,  Georgia  Replogle 
still  hoped  in  some  undefined  way  to  recover  her  health,  and 
..^■~  earn  by  her  own  hands  credit  for  bringing  before  the  world 

\o  the  first  print  of  this  Masterpiece  of  the  Master  Philosophy. 

"tj^  The  plates  of  this  work  are  the  property  of  the  sur- 

^^  vivor  of  this  now  broken  pair  of  veteran  Radicals,  and 


^ 


^^ 


iv  PREFATORY  NOTE. 

future  possible  editions  will  be  entirely  under  his  control,  as 
was  originally  intended  of  all  editions  by  both  of  them.    So 
since  the  fondest  hope  has  been  denied  by  fate,  the  nearest 
approximation  is  maintained  by  kindlier  human  effort,  in 
the  spirit  of  Georgia  Replogle's  most  loved  passage  from 
the  Eubaiyat  of  Omar  Khayyam  of  Naishapur : 

Ah  LoTe!  could  you  and  I  with  him  conspire 
To  grasp  this  sorry  Scheme  of  Things  entire, 
Would  not  we  shatter  it  to  bits — and  then 
Re-mould  it  nearer  to  the  Heart's  Desire  1 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  EGOISM 
I 

We  seek  understanding  of  facts  for  guidance  in 
action,  for  avoidance  of  mistake  and  suffering,  and 
even  for  resignation  to  the  inevitable.    This  state- 
ment may  cover  the  chief  aims  of  mankind  in  intel- 
lectual discussion,  ignoring  now  that  which  is  merely 
a  scholastic  exercise.    I  am  not  in  favor  of  argument 
in  the  style  of  the  debating  school,  merely  to  sharpen 
the  wits.    Sincerity  is  too  precious  to  be  tarnished 
by  a  practice  which  easily  generates  an  evil  habit, 
and  there  are,  at  least  as  yet,  too  many  occasions  in 
real  life  on  which  every  person  who  loves  to  tell  the 
truth  and  expose  falsehood  must  consider  time  and 
circumstance  lest  he  impale  himself  upon  implacable 
prejudices.    Consequently  if  duplicity  have  its  uses 
there  need  be  no  fear  that  it  will  not  be  cultivated 
without  concerted  efforts  thereto  among  those  who 
are  seeking  intellectual  light. 

I  have  placed  resignation  last,  though  it  may  be 
first  in  importance  for  some  individuals.    I  take  it 
that  the  life  forces  are  strong  enough  in  most  of  my 
readers  to  exude  in  promptings  to  action  which  shall 
move  things,  in  the  liberal  sympathy  which  would 
communicate  to  others  any  discoverable  means  to 
reach  conditions  of  greater  harmony. 

Is  it  not  a  fact  that  there  is  a  considerable 
amount  of  well  wishing  and  at  the  same  time  an  in- 
tricate series  of  reciprocal  injuries  practiced  by  man- 
kind, such  as  is  not  discoverable  in  any  other  species 
on  earth?    Then,  we  may  ask,  what  are  the  causes  of 
evils  in  society,  can  they  be  generalized,  and  what  is 
the  nature  or  principle  of  an  efficient  remedy?    If 
now  the  words  laissez  faire  occur  to  the  reader  he  will 
easily  remember  that  all  animals  except  man  practise 
according  to  that  principle.    Do  we  hear  of  fanati- 
cism among  them,  of  fighting  within  the  species  ex- 
cept in  defence  of  their  persons  and  property  or  on  a 
matter  of  rivalry  between  the  males?    But  what  do 
we  read  in  the  history  of  mankind  except  woes,  wars^ 
persecutions  and  catastrophes  beggaring  description, 
and  all  related  in  some  way  to  the  determination 
of   mankind  to  interfere  with   each   others'  actions, 


2  LAISSEZ    FAIRE. 

thoughts  and  feelings  for  the  purpose  of  making  peo- 
ple think  better  and  behave  better  as  conceived? 

The  theological  Liberal  is  never  tired  of  affirming 
that  the  greatest  cruelties  have  been  perpetrated  by 
bigots  acting  sincerely  for  religious  right  as  they 
thought  they  understood  it;  yet  among  the  theolog- 
ical Liberals  may  be  found  prohibitionists  and  taxa- 
tionists  manifesting  a  holy  horror  of  a  man  or  wo- 
man who  simply  wants  to  be  let  alone  while  he  or 
she  lets  others  alone,  and  who  refuses  to  join  in  any 
scheme  of  coercion.    They  insist  that  he  cannot  en- 
joy such  liberty  without  detriment  to  society,  and 
their  ire  rises  on  thinking  that  he  is  insensible  to  a 
moral  principle,  as  they  view  the  matter.    They  are 
bigots  unknowing. 

But  are  there  such  people  as  I  have  alluded  to, 
who  practise  the  rule  laissez  fairel  Certainly  there 
are.  (These  words  are  French  and  mean  "Let  them 
do,"  or  "  Let  other  people  alone  as  far  as  you  can.") 
Properly  understood  and  carried  out  in  political  sci- 
ence, as  by  Proudhon,  a  rational  system  of  Anarchy 
is  evolved  from  the  motto.  Anarchy  in  its  strict  and 
proper  philosophical  sense  means  "no tyranny," — the 
regulation  of  business  altogether  by  voluntary  and 
mutual  contract. 

With  some  readers  the  perception  of  these  rela- 
tions as  regards  religious  belief  and  political  institu- 
tions and  this  comparison  of  human  intolerance  with 
the  better  habit  of  other  species,  to  mind  their 
own  business,  will  have  suggested  the  fundamental 
thought  to  which  1  am  coming.    We  are  digging  now 
for  bottom  facts;  not  trying  to  invent  any  artifirial 
rule,  but  to  find  the  wholesome  reality  in  nature  if 
there  be  any  good  there  for  us,  and  to  find  the  maii- 
epring  of  normal  action  at  all  events,  leaving  for  af- 
ter discussion  if  advisable  whether  or  not  any  arti- 
ficial substitute  be  possible  or  commendable. 

Now  it  is  not  my  purpose  to  suggest  that  men 
ehould  pattern  after  any  other  species  of  animal. 
We  find  the  other  animals  acting  naturally,  seeking 
their  own  good,  going  each  his  own  way  ajid  letting 


EGOISM,  SEED-BED  OP  TOLERATION.  3 

each  other  alone  except  under  certain  conditions 
which  have  caused  a  momentary  conflict    of  individ- 
ual interests.    We  find  human  life  full  of  artificiality, 
perversion  and  misery,  much  of  which  can  be  directly 
traced  to  interference,  the  worst  of  this  interference 
having  no  chance  of  perpetuation  except  through  a 
certain  belief  in  its  social  necessity,  which  belief  arises 
from  or  is  interlaced  with  beliefs  as  to  details  of  con- 
duct, such  for  example  as  that  the  propagation  of 
the  human  species  would  not  occur  in  good  form  un- 
less officially  supervised,  and  so  forth.    Drawing  such 
comparisons  the  conclusion  appears  that  man  needs 
to  become  natural,  not  in  the  sense  of  abandoning 
the  arts  and  material  comforts  of  life,  but  in  the 
treatment  of  individuals  of  the  species  by  others  and 
in  their  collective  action. 

I  may  here  anticipate  an  objection.    Someone 
will  ask  wliether  I  pretend  that  Egoism  means  the 
same  as  laissez  fairs.    To  this  I  say  no,  but  the  prev- 
alence of  Egoism  will  reduce  interference,  even  by  the 
ignorant,  to  the  dimensions  of  their  more  undeniable 
interest  in  others'  affairs,  eliminating  every  motive 
of  a  fanatical  character.    Invasive  developments  of 
Egoism,  no  longer  reinforced  by  the  strength  of  the 
multitude  under  a  spell  of  personal  magnetism,  will 
probably  not  be  very  hard  to  deal  with ;  then  for 
want  of  success  such  developments  will  be  attenuated 
or  abandoned  within  the  species.    Thus  Egoism  is 
demonstrably  the  seed-bed  of  the  policy  and  habit  of 
general  tolerance.    And  if  vigilance  be  the  price  of 
liberty,  who  will  deny  that  the  tendency,  within  Ego- 
istic limits,  to  some  invasion  is  the  sure  creator  and 
sustenance  of  vigilance?    The  vaporizing,  non-Ego- 
istic philosophers  would  place  tolerance  upon  a 
cloud-bank  foundation  of  sentiment  and  attempt  to 
recompense  with  fine  words  of  praise  the  men  who 
can  be  persuaded  to  forego  an^^  advantage  which 
they  might  take  of  others.    Like  the  preachers  who 
picture  the  pleasure  of  sin  and  urge  people  to  refrain 
from  it,  their  attempts  are  inevitably  futile. 


4:  DEFINITION  OF  EGOISM. 

n. 

It  is  now  time  to  meet  the  demand  for  a  defini- 
tion of  Egoism.    The  dictionaries  must  be  resorted 
to  for  explanations  of  the  meanin^js  of  most  words, 
but  in  any  science,  art  or  philosophy  there  are  some 
leading  terms  understood  in  a  more  precise  manner 
than  that  general  notion  or  mass  of  nearly  related 
significations  given  in  the  dictionary  under  one  term. 
The  dictionary  is  like  a  map  of  the  world,  which 
shows  where  a  country  is  with  relation  to  all  other 
countries.    The  definition  of  the  dictionary  is  simply 
objective,  not  closely  analytical.    Its  language  is 
popular,  as  in  the  speaking  of  black  and  white  as 
colors.    All  this  is  well  enough.    People  need  infor- 
mation which  will  be  true  to  appearances,  for  practi- 
cal purposes,  and  need  so  wide  an  extent  of  this  in  a 
moderate  compass,  that  they  are  glad  to  get  brief 
explanations  or  even  hints  at  meanings,  prepared  by 
men  skilled  in  classifying  linguistic  growths.    Hence, 
however,  they  sometimes  find  the  popular  definitions 
as  good  but  not  better  than  to  define  cheese  as  con- 
densed milk.    The  so-called  synonyms  have  different 
shades  of  meaning,  but  disputants  easily  yield  to  the 
temptation  to  assume  an  identical  import  in  two 
terms,  sometimes  for  the  purpose  of  blackening  one 
by  throwing  upon  it  an  evil  connotation  which  ad- 
heres to  the  other;  and  conversely  the  hearer  is  usu- 
ally able  to  understand  immediately  whether  the 
speaker,  if  sincere,  is  friendly  or  hostile  toward  an 
object,  merely  by  noting  the  terms  chosen  in  alluding 
to  its  existence.    We  rarely  find  many  sentences  to- 
gether without  a  moral  judgment  being  conveyed. 
Such  judgments,  from  an  Egoistic  point  of  view, 
could  be  illustrated  by  representing  a  beggar  extol- 
ling charity. 

The  definition  of  the  specialist,  on  the  other 
hand,  is  like  a  map  which  shows  the  boundary  be- 
tween two  countries,  but  does  not  attempt  to  show 
anything  else.    To  the  navigator  land  is  that  be- 
neath his  vessel  which  is  not  water.    To  the  political 
economist  a  lake  and  a  bed  of  coal  are  equally  land. 


DISPARAGEMENT  BY  DEFINITION.  5 

The  two  specialists  are  concerned  with  two  different 
series  of  ideas,  therefore  with  different  aspects  of  the 
object. 

The  best  that  can  be  said  of  Webster's  dictionary 
definitions  of  Egoism,  is  that  a  reader  who  ah-eady 
understands  the  term  as  it  has  been  used  in  practical 
philosophy  for  more  than  forty  years,  may  barely 
recognize  the  idea  as  one  espies  a  diamond  in  a  dust- 
heap.    "The  habit  of    ....    judging  of  every- 
thing; by  its  relation  to  one's  interests  or  import- 
ance," is  Webster's  nearest  approach.    In  what  sense 
can  the  individual  and  his  interests  be  other  than  all- 
important  to  the  individual  ?    Only  in  the  sense  that, 
in  order  to  reject  Egoism,  his  interests  are  not  to  be 
understood  as  including  his  intellectual  and  senti- 
mental interest  in  objects,  including  other  persons. 
But  the  Egoist  will  take  the  liberty  to  inquire  how 
anyone  can  be  engaged  in  judging  of  anything  witli- 
out  having  taken  an  interest  in  it.    Let  us  assume 
that  a  new  dictionary  maker  inserts  in  his  work  a 
paragraph  like  this : 

Egoism,  d.    The  principle  of  self;  the  doctrine  of  individuality; 
self-interest;  selfishness. 

Then  I  shall  comment  by  saying  that  "  the  doc- 
trine of  individuality  "  is  a  happier  expression  than 
the  single  word  individuality,  for  the  latter  is  com- 
monly used  to  convey  the  idea  of  distinctive,  marked 
peculiarities  of  character.    Self-interest  is  usually  re- 
stricted to  pecuniary  interest  and  the  like,  ignoring 
what  is  reciprocal  in  the  pleasures  of  companionship 
and  what  affords  intellectual  satisfaction.    Selfish- 
ness is  commonly  used  to  indicate  self -gratification 
ir  disregard  of  the  feelings  of  others.    All  these  words 
indicate  Egoism,  but  they  indicate  it  with  special  de- 
terminations.   In  the  word  selfish  the  termination 
arrests  attention.    It  is  generally  disparaging;  c>ither 
connected  with  bad  words  or  it  gives  them  a  con- 
temptuous shade  of  meaning,  as  knavish,  thievish, 
foolish,  mawkish,  bookish  monkish,  popish.    Hence 
when  a  man  acts  in  certain  ways  causing  disgust  in 
other  people  they  declare  his  action  selfish, — not 


6  A  NEW  ANALYSIS  OF  SELFISHNESS. 

merely  a  manifestation  of  self,  but  one  which  they 
purpose  castigating  by  adding  the  termination  ex- 
pressive of  aversion  and  contempt.    The  linguistic 
instinct  appears  correct  to  this  extent,  however  in- 
correct may  be  the  popular  judgment  regarding  cer- 
tain actions  which  are  thus  stigmatized.    For  want 
of  this  thought  some  writers  have  laid  the  whole  pop- 
ular judgment,  expressed  in  the  reproach  of  selfish- 
ness, to  the  account  of  opposition  to  the  principle  of 
self.    There  is  certainly  a  great  deal  of  that.    It  is 
selfism  of  course,  which  protests,  and  selfishness 
which  protests  most  against  the  selfishness  of  others 
and  against  the  principle  of  self  in  others.    Selfishness 
argues  that  its  pasture  will  be  greener  and  richer  in 
proportion  as  others  yield  in  particular  desires  to  the 
preaching  of  unselfishness  and  self-abnegation,  which 
terms,  the  genius  of  selfishness  cunningly  declares  to 
be  synonymous  whenever  its  ends  are  to  be  served  by 
such  a  view.    Self-abnegMtion,  however,  in  its  full 
sense,  is  evidently  insanity,  while  unselfishness  may 
be  only  selfism  without  any  feature  which  can  be  cal- 
culated to  arouse  the  antipathy  of  other  individuals 
(that  is,  the  unisZiness  of  the  self).    This  is  a  new  an- 
alysis and  I  do  not  pretend  that  users  of  the  word 
unselfish  are  generally  conscious  of  any  force  in  the 
termination,  to  which  the  privative  prefix  may  apply, 
but  1  refer  to  Webster's  definitions  of  selfishness  and 
self-love  respectively  for  support  as  to  the  usage. 

III. 

Egoism  is  (1)  the  theory  of  will  as  reartion  of  the 
self  to  a  motive;  (2)  every  such  reaction  in  fact. 
This  double  definition  is  in  accord  with  the  usual  lat- 
itude due  to  the  imperfection  of  language,  in  conse- 
quence of  which  an  identical  term  covers  theory,  indi- 
vidual fact  and  mass  of  facts.    I  apprehend  that  in 
making  this  fundamental  definition  I  shall  have 
provoked  the  dissent  of  some  readers  well  enough 
grounded  in  mental  philosophy  to  perceive  that  on 
accepting  the  definition  they  must  speedily  consign 
any  claim  for  an  unegoistic  philosophy  to  the  realm 


MEANING   OF   MOTIVE.  7 

of  mental  vap:aries.    They  will  accuse  me  of  be<:^,2;ing 
a  question  in  the  definition ;  but  1  cannot  wish  to  lay 
down  a  definition  less  fundamental  than  that  which 
will  be  found  sufficiently  comprehensive  and  exact  in 
every  relation  of  rational  motive  and  resulting  voli- 
tion and  action.    When  I  shall  have  done  justice  to 
"Altruism  "  it  will  be  seen  that  there  is  here,  no  beg- 
ging of  any  question.    The  alternatives  which  the 
"Altruists"  propose  may  accord  with  such  of  their 
own  conceptions  as  they  wish  to  term  "  Egoism," 
with  which,  however,  I  have  no  complicity. 

By  "the  self"  1  mean  the  living  person  or  animal, 
as  recognized  by  the  senses  and  consciousness,  and 
not  any  mysterious,  intangible  entity  or  supposed 
entity, — "soul,"  "mind"  or  "spirit." 

By  "motive"  I  mean  any  influence, — sight,  sound, 
pressure,  thought  or  other  energy, — operating  upon 
the  self,  and  thereby  causing  a  change  in  the  self,  un- 
der which  process  it  reacts  to  seize  what  contributes 
to  its  satisfaction  or  to  repel  or  escape  from  what 
produces  or  threatens  its  discomfort  or  undesired 
destruction. 

If  my  definition  be  imperfect,  the  gap  is  in  omit- 
ting to  mention  reflex  action  together  with  will.    I 
regard  reflex  action  as  probably  connected  with  a 
species  of  will  in  the  nerve  centers  (and  in  other  plas- 
tic matter  in  the  lowest  animals).    However  this  may 
be,  reflex  actions  are  not  subject  to  serious  dispute 
in  any  speculative  moral  aspect.    The  omission,  there- 
fore, if  any,  would  concern  the  exhaustiveness  of  the 
definition,  not  its  quality.    But  the  merit  of  a  defini- 
tion is  not  in  its  exhaustiveness ;  it  is  in  drawing  the 
line  at  the  right  place.    As  I  do  not  purpose  further 
defining  "will,"  I  will  just  say  that  reflex  action  being 
granted  to  be  in  effect  self -regarding,  all  that  remains 
to  be  done  in  order  to  universalize,  according  to  these 
views,  the  recognition  of  the  Egoistic  theory,  is  to  es- 
tablish all  determinations  to  voluntary  activity  as 
reactions,  plus  consciousness  in  the  brain,  like  reflex 
actions  without  it.    Any  controversy  against  the 
Egoistic  theory  will  rage  along  the  line  of  voluntary 


8  MEANING  OP  "the  SELF.*' 

action ;  hence  that  part  of  the  line  of  Egoism  is  all 
that  is  essential  to  be  put  into  a  definition.    But  if 
I  have  omitted  reflex  action  in  (1)  the  theory,  1  have 
not  ignored  it  in  (2)  "such  reaction  in  fact,"  for 
"such"  refers  to  the  self. 

Consulting  convenience,  I  have  written  "the  self" 
whether  meaning  apparently  the  whole  co-ordinated 
energies  of  the  self  or  the  attracting  and  repelling 
powers  of  any  organ  or  member  thereof.    Probably 
never  were  the  whole  energies  of  any  animal  exerted 
at  once  under  the  stimulus  of  any  motive  or  combi- 
nation of  motives;  hence  the  common  expression  is 
an  exaggeration. 

A  course  of  reading  in  history,  philosophy  and 
science,  especially  standard  literature  on  evolution, 
together  with  personal  observation  of  animal,  includ- 
ing human  life,  will  gradually  convince  any  intelligent 
person  that  all  voluntary  acts,  including  a  certain 
class  of  acts  popularly  but  erroneously  called  non- 
voluntary, are  caused  by  motives  acting  upon  the 
feeling  and  reason  of  the  Ego,  and  that  the  reaction 
of  the  Ego  to  a  motive  occurs  as  surely  according  to 
the  Ego's  composition  and  the  motive  as  does  any 
chemical  reaction ;  that  the  only  difiiculty  for  our 
understanding  is  in  the  complexity  of  motive  influ- 
ences (motives)  and  composition  of  the  subject  acted 
upon.    To  avoid  this  conclusion  the  dogmatists  have 
spoken  of  motive  as  if  it  were  something  self-originat- 
ing in  the  thoughts.    Plainly,  motive  is  any  influence 
which  causes  movement.    There  must  be  a  cause  for 
every  thought  as  well  as  every  sensation.    That  cause 
must  affect  the  Ego,  and  the  Ego  cannot  but  react 
if  affected, — therefore  according  to  the  character  of 
the  motive  and  the  manner  and  degree  in  which  the 
Ego  is  affected  in  any  of  its  parts,  otherwise  there 
would  be  no  nature,  no  continuity  of  phenomena. 
In  short,  man  in  everything  is  within  the  domain  of 
nature ;  that  is,  the  regular  succession  of  apparently 
selJ-correlating  phenomena. 


MOTIVE   ROOT.  9 

A  motive  planted  in  the  Ej^o  (that  is  to  say  in 
the  self)  may  be  compared  to  a  seed  planted  in  the 
ground.    Assuming  that  it  germinates,  the  commonly 
observed  effect  is  an  upward  growth  of  stalk  and  fruit, 
analogous  to  voluntary  action ;  but  I  have  defined 
Egoism  by  reference  to  the  spring  of  such  action 
rather  than  by  reference  to  the  action  as  phenome- 
non, for  a  reason  which  will  be  understood  by  follow- 
ing out  the  analogy.    Beside  the  upward  growth 
there  is  a  formation  of  root.    The  stalk  of  some 
plants  may  be  repeatedly  cut  off,  but  while  the  root 
is  alive  there  is  the  probability  of  another  upward 
growth.    This  is  most  generally  the  case  with  young 
plants.    Though  mental  analysis  should  reduce  will 
to  a  mere  abstract  term  of  convenience  for  an  imag- 
inary link  between  motive  and  act,  and  whether  or 
not  volition  becomes  differentiated  to  bear  a  more 
precise  and  active  sense,  it  is  necessary  to  have  a  con- 
ception correlating  renewed  activities  with  former 
ones,  as  perceived  in  repetition  or  in  series,  without 
the  planting  of  new  seed.    This  is  found  not  in  the 
simple  and  familiar  illustration  of  seed  lying  with- 
out germinating  for  some  time,  but  in  the  invisible 
growth  beneath  the  surface,  supplying  energy  and 
determination  to  forms  which  repeatedly  appear  and 
then  take  various  directions  accordingly  as  they  en- 
counter obstacles. 

IV. 

Beside  indi-^lduals  we  encounter  groups  variously 
cemented  together  by  controlling  ideas ;  such  groups 
are  families,  tribes,  states  and  churches.    The  more 
nearly  a  group  approaches  the  condition  of  being  held 
together  by  the  interest  of  its  members  without  con- 
straint of  one  exercised  over  other  members,  the  more 
nearly  does  the  group  approximate  to  the  character 
of  an  Ego,  in  itself.    Observation  and  reflection  show 
that  the  group,  or  collectivity,  never  yet  composed 
wholly  of  enlightened  individuals  joining  and  adher- 
ing in  the  group  through  individual  accord,  has  al- 
ways fallen  short  of  the  approximation  which  is  con- 


10  EGO   NATURE   OF  A  CXlIyLECTIVITT. 

ceivable  for  the  gi^oup  to  the  independent  Egoistic 
character.    The  family,  tribe,  state  and  church  are 
all  dominated  physically  or  mentally  by  some  indi- 
viduals therein.    These  groups,  such  a^  they  have 
been  known  in  all  history,  never  could  have  existed 
with  the  disproportionate  powers  and  influence  of 
their  members  but  for  prevailing  beliefs  reducible  to 
ignorance,  awe  and  submission  in  the  mass  of  the 
members. 

With  this  explanation  and  corresponding  allow- 
ance, the  group  may  be  spoken  of  as  approximatively 
Egoistic  in  its  character.    Even  when  least  swayed  by 
individual  members,  the  family,  the  nation  and  the 
church  are  thoroughly  selfy.    These  composite  indi- 
vidualities, as  it  is  the  fancy  of  some  writers  to  con- 
sider them,  are  appealed  to  in  vain  to  furnish  an  ex- 
ception to  the  Egoistic  principle.    When  Jack  imposes 
upon  the  ignorance  of  Jill  or  upon  habits  acquired 
during  mutual  aid,  and  Jill  is  too  trusting  to  trace 
the  transaction  back  to  fundamental  elements  and 
calculations  of  mutual  benefit,  the  matter  is  readily 
laid  to  Jack's  selfishness,  which  of  course  lauds  its 
victim's  welcome  compliance;  but  when  the  family 
demands  a  heavy  sacrifice  of  each  member,  attention 
is  mostly  drawn  by  Moralists  to  the  advantage  of  the 
family  and  the  need  of  such  sacrifices,  never  to  the 
phenomenon  of  a  ruthless  form  of  Egoism  in  the  fam- 
ily, imposing  upon  its  members  who  have  felt  some  of 
the  advantages  and  then  yielded  to  pretensions  which 
will  not  bear  analysis,  or  tracing  back  in  an  actual 
account  of  loss  and  gain.    Thus  it  is  said  to  the  man 
that  he  needs  a  wife,  to  the  woman  that  she  need  a 
husband,  and  to  the  children  that  they  needed  pa- 
rents and  will  need  obedience  from  their  own  children 
by  and  by.    On  the  strengt.h  of  these  views  various 
sacrifices  of  the  happiness  of  man,  woman  and  youth 
may  be  effected  while  they  do  not  inquire  precisely 
what  they  do  need  individually  and  how  they  can 
get  it  at  least  cost  of  unhappiness. 

The  family,  attempting  to  become  an  Ego,,  tr-eata 
its  members  as  an  Ego  naturally  treats  avaiU^.e  or- 


FALrl^ACY   OP   "social   ENTITY."  11 

g^nic  or  iiiorg:anic  matter.    The  supine  become  raw 
material.    The  person  has  the  power  to  resign  self- 
care  and  allow  himself  to  be  seized  upon  and  worked 
up  as  material  by  any  of  the  other  real  or  would-be 
Egos  that  are  in  quest  of  nutriment  and  of  bases  of 
operations.    The  greater  would-be  Ego,  the  ''social 
organism,"  reinforces  the  family  demand  with  persua- 
sion that  hesitates  at  no  fallacy,  but  first  plies  the  in- 
dividual with  some  general  logic  as  to  our  need  of 
each  other,  then  with  flattery,  how  it  will  repay  him 
for  inconvenience  by  praise,  external  and  internal,  all 
the  while  exerting  a  moral  terrorism  over  every  mind 
weak  enough  to  allow  it,  and  all  to  subjugate  the 
real  Ego  to  the  complex  would-be  but  impossible 
Ego.    For  not  the  good  of  the  family,  but  of  itself,  is 
the  object  of  the  state  and  of  the  "social  organism." 
The  state  prates  of  the  sacredness  of  the  family,  but 
treats  it  with  scant  courtesy  when  its  own  interest 
conflicts  with  the  family  interest.    The  "  social  or- 
ganism" reinforces  the  family  against  the  individual 
and  the  state  against  the  family,  this  already  threat- 
ening the  family,  and  obviously  it  will  next  threaten 
the  state  so  far  as  this  can  be  distinguished  from  the 
community;  that  is,  the  "social  organism"  will 
have  no  permanent  use  for  separate  nations. 

But  in  speaking  thus  we  should  not  forget  that 
the  group,  or  collectivity,  reflects  the  will  of  some 
master  minds,  or  at  the  widest  the  will  of  a  large 
number  under  the  influence  of  certain  beliefs.    Either 
one  or  two  or  three  horses  may  draw  a  plow,  and  its 
motions  will  be  different.    The  complexity  of  motion 
from  three  horses  is  certainly  a  phenomenon  to  be 
studied,  but  the  way  is  not  to  disregard  the  elemen- 
tary motive  forces  which  form  the  result  by  their 
combination ;  and  so  it  is  with  any  society.    Its  phe- 
nomena will  be  according  to  conditions  of  informa- 
tion and  to  circumstances  which  determine  the  direc- 
tion of  personal  desires.    The  certainty  of  desire  and 
aversion  as  motives,  founded  in  self-preservation,  is 
found  in  the  nature  of  or^nic  as  distinguished  from 
inorganic  exist-ence.    All  desires  and  dislikes,  acting 


12  THEOLrOGICAL  AND  MORALrlSTIC  PARITY. 

and  counter-acting,  make  the  so-called  social  will, — a, 
more  convenient  than  accurate  abstraction.    To 
make  of  it  an  entity  is  a  metaphysical  fancy.    Unity 
of  will  is  the  sig;n  of  individuality.    The  semblance  of 
a  social  self,  apart  from  individuals,  obviously  arises 
from  the  general  concurrence  of  wills.    They  could 
not  do  otherwise  than  run  along  parallel  lines  of 
least  resistance,  but  the  intellectual  prism  separates 
the  blended  social  rays. 

The  church  is  an  important  group,  under  the  the- 
ological belief.    The  primitive  character  of  its  dom- 
inant idea  finds  its  complementary  expression  in  the 
simple  and  transparent  Egoism  of  its  immediate 
motives.    A  personal  ruler,  judge  and  rewarder  exist- 
ing in  belief,  commands  and  threatens.    The  person 
sacrifices  part  of  his  pleasure  to  propitiate  tliis  mas- 
ter because  he  fears  his  power.    Habits  supervene 
and  the  investigating  spirit  is  terrorized  both  by  per. 
sonal  belief  and  the  fear  of  other  fear-stricken  believ- 
,  ers,  watchful  and  intolerant.    The  hope  of  heaven 
and  fear  of  punishment  are  of  the  simplest  Egoism. 
Morality  on  the  same  plane  includes  the  fear  of  man 
and  hope  of  benefit  from  man,  complicated  with  belief 
in  reciprocal  enforcement  of  ecclesiastical  duties,  and 
this  as  a  duty.    Becoming  metaphysical  it  is  doubt- 
less more  difficult  of  analysis,  but  this  secondary  or 
transition  stage  of  mind  is  already  disposed  of  as  a 
whole  by  philosophy,  so  that  the  evolutionist  pre- 
dicts the  passage  of  its  phenomena  and  their  replace- 
ment by  positive  ideas  of  processes.    The  metaphys- 
ical stage  will  pass  away  though  its  formulas  be  en- 
tirely neglected  by  the  advancing  opposition.    In 
fact,  spell-bound  and  mystified  man  is  freed  by  cour- 
age to  break  off  from  the  chain  of  phantasies  which 
has  succeeded  to  the  chain  of  theological  fear.    In 
this  progress  example  counts  suggestively  and  even 
demonstratively,  and  new  habits  of  positive,  specific 
inquiry  give  the  intellect  mastery  of  itself  and  of  the 
emotions  which  had  enslaved  it. 

To  sum  up  this  part  of  the  subject,  let  those  who 
preach  anti-Egoistic  doctrines  in  the  name  of  deity, 


DEFINITION  OP  ALTRUISM.  13 

society  or  collective  humanity,  tell  us  of  a  deity  who 
is  not  an  Egroistic  autocrat,  or  who  has  worshipers 
who  do  not  bow  down  to  him  because  they  think  it 
wisest  to  submit;  of  a  family  which  sacrifices  itself  to 
the  individuals  and  not  the  individuals'  hopes  and 
wishes  to  itself;  of  a  community  or  political  or  social 
state  which  departs  from  the  rule  of  self-defence  and 
self-aggrandizement;  of  any  aggregation,  pretending 
to  permanence,  that  is  not  for  itself  and  against  ev- 
ery individuality  that  would  subtract  from  its  power 
and  influence ;  of  a  collective  humanity  that  is  not 
for  itself,  the  collectivity,  though  it  were  necessary  to 
discourage  and  suppress  any  individual  freedom 
which  the  collectivity  did  not  think  to  be  well  dis- 
posed toward  the  collectivity  or  at  least  certain  to 
operate  to  its  ultimate  benefit.    Self  is  the  thought 
and  aim  in  all.    Selfiness  is  their  common  characteris- 
tic.   Without  it  they  would  be  elemental  matter,  un- 
resisting food  for  other  growths. 

V. 

Can  the  altruistic  be  included  in  the  Egoistic? 
According  to  a  standard  definition,  quoted  and 
adopted  in  Webster's  dictionary,  from  the  Eclectic 
Review,  the  reply  seems  to  be  that  it  can.    That  defi- 
nition reads  as  follows : 

Altruistic,  a.  [from  Lat.  alter,  other.]    Regardful  of  others ; 
proud  of  or  devoted  to  others ;  opposed  to  egotistic. 

If  Egoism  were  the  same  and  as  narrow  in  mean- 
ing as  egotistic,  of  course  the  question  would  have  to 
be  differently  answered.    But  egotism  bears  the  same 
relation  to  Egoism  as  the  term  selfishness,  used  with 
purpose  in  the  derogatory  syllable,  bears  to  my 
newly  coined  term,  selfiness ;  hence  we  will  set  it  down 
that  some  constructive  use  for  the  term  altruistic  is 
not  of  necessity  excluded  from  Egoistic  philosophy. 
But  let  it  be  observed  that  claims  made  for  Altruism, 
based  upon  an  ignorant  or  capricious  limitation  of 
the  meaning  of  Egoism,  and  a  glorification  of  the 
doctrine  of  devotion  to  others,  intended  to  produce 
a  habit  of  self-surrender,  are  held  in  our  mode  of 


14  ALTRUISTIC  MENTAL  SLAVERY. 

thought  to  be  pernicious,  and  attributed,  in  conclu- 
sions from  our  analysis,  to  defective  observations 
and  reasoning,  and  to  the  subtle  workings  of  selfish- 
ness.   To  be  regardful  of  others  within  reason,  is  in- 
telligent Egoism  in  the  first  place,  but  before  we  go 
far  in  this  we  draw  a  distinction  between  such  others 
as  are  worth  regarding  and  such  others  as  present  no 
title  to  regard  unless  a  barren  and  superstitious  form 
of  respect  obtrudes  itself  and  makes  a  claim  for 
"  others  "  because  they  are  "  others," — makes  a  vir- 
tue of  sinking  self  before  that  which  is  external  to 
the  self.    This  is  the  principle  of  worship,  mental 
slavery,  superstition,  anti-Egoistic  thought.    To  be 
proud  of  othei's,  of  the  right  sort  for  us,  is  one  form 
of  Egoistic  rejoicing.     When  reflection  has  done  its 
work  efficiently  the  habit  of  care  for  others,  of  the 
right  sort  for  us,  continues  until  checked  by  some 
counter  experience ;  but  let  the  habit  become  strong, 
let  the  avenues  to  esteem  be  unguarded  and  the  sen- 
timent of  worship  usurp  the  place  of  good  sense, 
then  the  Ego  is  undone.    He  is  like  the  mariner  who 
has  set  sail  and  lashed  his  helm  in  a  fixed  position, 
fallen  asleep  and  drifted  into  other  currents  under 
changing  winds. 

Some  Altruistic  writers  remind  me  of  the  ortho- 
dox theologians.    In  face  of  the  facts  of  physical 
science  the  theologian  admits  that  everything  in  this 
world  proceeds  according  to  an  invariable  order,  but 
he  insists  upon  giving  it  a  magical,  ghostly  origin. 
The  Altruistic  writers  likewise  admit  that  the  imme- 
diate choice  of  action  of  each  individual  at  each  turn 
in  his  career  is  determined  by  causes  with  precision, 
but  they  plead  for  an  Altruistic  education,  an  Altru- 
istic impulse  now,  so  that  hereafter  the  reaction  of 
the  individual  to  given  causes  may  be  this :  that  he 
^"^  will  find  his  pleasure  in  the  social  welfare.    1  say  that 
if  he  finds  his  pleasure  in  it,  he  Egoistically  promotes 
it ;  and  if  those  writers  find  their  pleasure  in  plan- 
ning a  greater  social  welfare,  their  initial  efforts  in 
the  matter  are  Egoistic.    The  reflecting  person  may 
perceive  that  there  is  room'  for  mistake  as  to  what  is 


INDIVIDUAL  MISJBRIES  FROM  TRUMPERY  BELIEFS.        15 

the  social  welfare.    The  doctrine  which  demands  that 
a  person  shall  forego  some  pleasure  without  having  a 
deliberate  conviction  that  by  so  doing  he  makes  a 
wise  individual  choice,  is  responsible  for  a  certain  im- 
mediate lessening  of  welfare  at  one  point.    Beyond 
that  it  may  be  an  illusion  of  ignorance. 

The  beliefs  which  prevail  at  one  time  regarding 
what  is  for  the  social  welfare  are  widely  different  from 
those  which  succeed  them.    Once  it  was  deemed  inju- 
rious to  society  to  teach  a  slave  to  read,  and  conse- 
quently injurious  to  tolerate  in  a  slaveholding  com- 
monwealth the  presence  of  a  free  person  who  ven- 
tured to  follow  his  liberal  inclination  in  this  respect 
toward  an  intelligent  slave  of  deserving  character 
and  conduct.    Those  who  yielded  to  this  social  belief 
which  they  shared,  rather  than  make  an  exception  by 
following  personal  inclination,  yielded  to  what  has 
since  been  generally  pronounced  to  be  a  malefic  er- 
ror.   At  the  present  day  the  beliefs  pievail  that  con- 
jugal rights  of  person  over  person  are  contributory 
to  the  social  welfare ;  that  children  owe  allegiance  to 
their  parents,  and  blood  relations  peculiar  obliga- 
tions to  each  other ;  that  citizens  need  to  feel  other 
bonds  than  their  own  interested  calculations  and 
spontaneous  benevolence;  and  so  I  might  proceed 
with  an  array  of  phantom  claimants  exacting  duties 
of  the  individual  believer,  prescribing  what  he  shall 
and  shall  not  do  to  be  a  worthy  promoter  of  the  so- 
cial welfare ;  whereas  on  the  whole  there  never  has 
been  any  social  welfare  understood  or  realized,  but 
meanwhile  trumpery  beliefs  prevailing  in  the  past 
and  present  have  filled  the  world  with  individual 
miseries.  ^^ 

Some  of  the  Altruists  contend  that  their  ideal 
man  is  wiser  than  to  serve  the  beliefs  of  society.    He 
works  for  his  own  ideal  with  his  own  reason  for  his 
guide.    Tliey  fear  that  if  he  were  to  lose  the  urging 
sense  of  duty  to  the  ideal  he  would  cease  to  labor  for 
a  better  condition  of  things.    Now  this  is  on  their 
part,  when  stated,  an  insidious  even  if  unconscious 
challenge  to  us  Egoists  to  show  them  that  Egoism  is 


16  EGOISM  AS  RATIONALISM. 

a  better  Altruism  than  Altruism  itself.    The  matter 
presents  itself  thus,  that  the  Altruist  wants  to  in- 
quire or  discuss  whether  Eo;oism  is  "right,"  best  for 
society,  and  so  forth.    Perhaps  it  will  break  up  all 
the  societies  that  now  exist,  and  constitute  new 
moral  worlds,  making  new  ideals  possible ;  perhaps 
liberality  of  mind  will  prompt  to  all  and  more  than 
the  most  intelligent  and  enlightened  Altruist  expects 
from  the  sentiment  of  duty ;  but  however  this  may 
be,  we  Egoists  are  not  arguing  for  the  right  of  Ego- 
ism to  be  tried.    We  are  trying  to  explain  that  Ego- 
ism is  the  chief  fact  of  organic  existence — its  universal 
characteristic. 

Let  us  analyze  Altruism  with  reference  to  pursuits 
instead  of  confining  all  our  attention  to  persons.    A 
new  acquaintance  and  anew  thing  are  alike  objects  to 
the  Ego.    His  aim  is  to  make  use  of  them.    The  Ego's 
mental  caliber  and  his  predilections,  heredity,  or  hab- 
its with  regard  to  association,  distinguishing  him  as 
an  individual,  are  exhibited  in  the  appreciation  which 
he  shows  for  some  objects  which  can  be  made  use  of 
as  means  to  gain,  or  reduce  to  use,  further  objects. 
The  less  reflecting  man  finds  grain  and  consumes  it 
all,  finds  wood  and  uses  all  kinds  alike  for  fuel.    The 
more  reasoning  man  saves  some  grain  for  seed,  culti- 
vates it  and  gets  more,  saves  hard  wood  for  durable 
uses,  makes  tools  of  metal,  and  studies  his  future  wel- 
fare by  planning  means  to  ends  instead  of  living  from 
hand  to  mouth.    In  so  far  as  he,  in  dealing  with  either 
persons  or  things,  keeps  in  view  the  rational  purpose 
of  becoming  better  convenienced  by  any  postpone- 
ment or  surrender  of  immediate  pleasure,  he  is  clearly 
acting  with  Egoistic  judgment.    Even  when,  having 
tested  a  series  of  phenomena,  he  establishes  a  rule  and 
allows  habits  to  supervene,  saving  himself  the  trouble 
of  constant  repetition  of  verifications,  he  is  still  the 
same  Egoist;  but  if  he  lose  the  normal  control  of  his 
exertions  with  reference  to  objects  and  ends  which  at 
first  were  to  him  means  to  other  ends,  he  becomes  an 
idealistic  Altruist  in  the  sense  in  which  Altruism  is  dis- 
tinguished from  Egoism.    In  other  words  he  becomes 


DIFFERENCE  BETWEEN  I:G0IST  AND  DEVOTEE.  17 

irrational,  or  insane.    As  some  individuals  have  mind 
enough  to  be  habitually  regardful  of  others  according 
to  their  merits,  some  artisans  are  habitually  careful 
of  their  tools  and  more  systematic  and  steady  in  their 
methods  of  work  than  others.    Does  this  argue  that 
they  are  less  selfy  or  does  it  simply  argue  that  they 
are  more  theoretical  and,  with  excellent  reason  at  the 
foundation,  exemplify  the  law  of  character  by  which  a 
process  of  reasoning  having  been  settled,  the  interme- 
diate links  in  some  chains  of  reasoning,  become  famil- 
iar, are  passed  over  without  self-consciousness?    The 
selfiness  of  a  farmer  who  goes  out  in  the  cold  to  save 
his  stock,  at  the  cost  to  him  of  some  discomfort  only, 
is  not  less  in  quantity,  but  is  connected  with  more  in- 
telligence, than  that  of  one  who  avoids  the  cold  and 
lets  his  stock  suffer.    But  a  farmer  may  become  so 
avaricious  that  he  will  get  his  limbs  frozen  in  his 
craze  to  save  a  yearling  for  the  sake  of  the  few  dollars . 
it  is  worth  to  him.    The  love  of  money  within  reason 
is  conspicuously  an  Egoistic  manifestation,  but  when 
the  passion  gets  the  man,  when  money  becomes  his 
ideal,  his  god,  we  must  class  him  as  an  Altruist. 
There  is  the  characteristic  of  "  devotion  to  another," 
no  matter  that  that  other  is  neither  a  person  nor  the 
social  welfare,  nothing  but  the  fascinating  golden  calf 
or  a  row  of  figures.    We  Egoists  draw  the  line  of  dis- 
tinction between  the  Egoist  and  the  devotee.    It  is 
the  same  logically  when  a  person  becomes  bewitched 
with  another  of  the  opposite  sex  so  as  to  lose  judg- 
ment and  self-control,  though  this  species  of  fascina- 
tion is  usually  curable  by  experience,  while  the  miser's 
insanity  cannot  be  reached.    The  love-sick  man  or 
woman  has  the  illusion  dispelled  by  contact  with  the 
particular  person  that  caused  it;  but  in  certain  cases 
absence  or  death  prevents  the  remedy  from  being  ap- 
plied, and  in  some  of  these  instances  the  mental  mal- 
ady is  lifelong.    "  Devotion  to  others,"  it  will  be  ob- 
served, can  be  made  a  text  for  other  sermons  than 
those  emanating  from  the  amiable  Moralists  who 
pride  themselves  upon  the  alleged  superiority  of  an 
unreservedly  Altr  uistic  habit  of  thought. 


18  WHAT  CONSTITUTES  IDEALISTIC  SLAVERY. 

VI. 

The  man  who  has  fifty  or  a  hundred  suits  of 
clothes  made  for  his  imagined  use,  the  woman  who 
keeps  a  colony  of  cats,  the  man  who  fills  a  private 
storehouse  with  all  sorts  of  tools  which  he  can  never 
use,  are  equally  illustrations  of  the  subversion  of  rea- 
son and  are  to  be  classed  as  Altruists  in  the  degree 
in  which  Altruism  supplants  a  rational  Egoism.    Let 
us  take  up  these  cases  and  consider  them  in  detail. 
To  have  more  than  one  suit  of  clothes  is  mostly  a 
wise  provision  for  the  future,  hence  the  aim  is  Egois- 
tic, but  from  the  point  at  which  the  accumulator 
loses  sight  of  the  end  for  which  his  care  and  trouble 
are  taken,  and  becomes  a  slave  to  the  idea  of  clothes, 
he  ceases  to  be  intellectually  his  own  master ;  he  falls 
under  the  domination  of  a  fixed  idea  and  is  in  that 
respect  like  a  fanatic.    The  difference  between  him  and 
the  fanatic  is  that  his  crotchet  is  merely  a  waste  of 
time  and  means,  whereas  the  fanatic's  fixed  idea  is 
one  impelling  its  slave  to  some  sort  of  senseless  inter- 
ference with  other  people's  conduct.    The  fanatic,  too, 
is  an  idealistic  Altruist.    If  his  oppression  of  others 
were  carried  on  in  pursuance  of  a  selfish  calculation, 
he  would  not  be  a  fanatic. 

The  woman  who  keeps  an  absurd  number  of  cats 
embodies  the  exaggeration  of  the  originally  rational 
idea  that  it  is  a  useful  course  to  have  one  or  two  cats 
about  a  house  to  keep  the  mice  down.    Care  for  the 
useful  domestic  cat,  without  reasoning  this  matter 
over  continually,  is  just  as  altruistic  and  no  more  so 
than  fair  treatment  of  good  neighbors  or  of  neighbors 
who  would  probably  be  dangerous  if  unfairly  treated. 
The  craze  for  cats  is  the  same  kind  of  Altruism  as 
that  which  dictates  entire  self-sacrifice  for  the  imag- 
ined good  of  other  people. 

One  may  need  many  appliances,  but  there  is  a  ra- 
tional limit  to  the  accumulation  of  tools.    It  is  quite 
clear  that  some  men  pass  this  limit  and  make  collec- 
tions of  such  things  a  hobby,  not  for  exhibition  and 
instruction,  because  they  will  eagerly  accumulate  a 


LIMITED  ALTRUISTIC  EGOIBM.  19 

dozen  or  fifty  articles  of  a  kind,  and  not  for  commerce. 
This  mild  form  of  insanity  cannot  well  be  classed  oth- 
erwise than  as  a  degeneration  from  rational  Egoism, 
through  the  altruistic  process,  to  supernal  Altruism. 

I  have  dwelt  upon  these  examples  partly  because 
it  is  sometimes  assumed  that  professed  Egoists  should 
use  neither  foresight  nor  prudential  self-denial.  Crit- 
ics who  presume  to  argue  in  this  way  refer  man  to  the 
improvident  species  of  animals  and  forget  even  the 
squirrel.  It  is  quite  consistent  with  Egoistic  philoso- 
phy and  practice  that  foresight  should  be  used  and 
specific  pleasures  relinquished,  and  that  habits  of  pru- 
dential self-denial  should  be  formed,  subject  to  search- 
ing review  and  ready  self-control,  especially  as  we  are 
admonished  on  any  change  of  surroundings. 

And  now,  having  traced  the  degeneration  of  the 
limited  altruistic  phase  of  Egoism  (the  rational  post- 
ponement of  immediate  ends  to  means  of  no  value  in 
themselves  but  only  to  reach  Egoistic  ends),  in  other 
words  having  viewed  Egoism  as  partly  a  pursuit  of 
means,  and  so  a  rational  course,  and  Egoistically 
altruistic  habits  as  a  further  rational  economy  of 
time,  in  place  of  endless  minute  examination  and  cal- 
culations of  consequences, — having  explained  from  the 
Egoistic  point  of  view  how,  when  the  Ego  has  in  some 
instance  purposely  dismissed  the  immediate  gratifica- 
tion of  self,  he  may  and  does  sometimes  fail  to  return 
to  it  for  want  of  landmarks,  memory  and  reflection, 
I  would  inquire  whether  there  be  any  better  explana- 
tion of  the  origin  of  the  insanity  of  self-abnegation ; 
I  mean  in  the  real,  extreme  unegoistic  sense  of  the 
word ;  a  sacrifice  without  expectation  of  compensa- 
tion to  the  individual.    The  limited  altruistic  phase 
of  Egoism  is  inevitable  for  a  complex  being.    It  in- 
volves the  peril  described.    He  runs  the  risk  of  going 
into  supernal  Altruism,  much  as  the  sailor,  deliber- 
ately going  out  of  sight  of  land  to  reach  other  land, 
runs  whatever  risk  there  may  be  of  forgetting  the  ob- 
ject with  which  he  undertook  the  voyage  or  of  losing 
his  compass  and  never  getting  back;  or  as  an  orator, 
entering  upon  the  flowery  path  of  illustration,  may 


20  THE  ALTRUISTIC  INSANITY  ACCOUNTED  FOR. 

become  captivated  with  the  images  of  his  fancy  and 
utterly  forget  the  logical  conclusion  which  he  intended 
only  momentarily  to  postpone  in  order  to  reach  it 
with  greater  effect. 

As  hobbies,  miserly  habits,  and  so  forth,  do  not 
seem  to  admit  of  any  other  explanation  than  the  one 
presented,  and  as  fanaticism  with  its  cruel  deeds  ad- 
mittedly springs  from  concern  for  others,  coupled 
with  a  belief  that  certain  of  their  doctrines  are  errors, 
and  is  thus  identified  despite  its  deplorable  character- 
istics, as  being  a  pronounced  Altruism,  and  yet  in  con- 
sequence of  these  characteristics  it  will  not  be  defended 
by  professed  Altruists,  but  will  be  admitted  by  them 
to  originate  in  unreason,  I  should  not  expect  them  to 
object  to  this  way  of  accounting  for  all  obviously  evil 
forms  of  Altruism.    But  the  obviously  evil  and  the 
silly  phases  of  Altruism  are  apparently  as  intense  as 
those  phases  which  are  so  much  praised  and  expatia- 
ted upon  by  professed  Altruists,  and  therefore  ])re- 
sumably  require  an  equal  formative  energy.    Conse- 
quently until  the  contrary  is  shown,  we  shall  be  as 
thoroughly  warranted  in  reason  in  assuming  that  if 
the  one  set  have  been  accounted  for  by  oar  theory  of 
the  development  of  the  dominating  power  of  ideas 
and  sentiments,  the  other  can  be  accounted  for  in  the 
same  way ;  precisely  as  we  may  say  that  if  the  phys- 
ical development  theory  be  admitted  to  account  for 
the  snake  and  the  hawk,  it  will  be  taken  to  account 
for  the  sheep  and  the  deer.    And  moreover,  when  a 
process  of  development  is  shown  to  hold  good,  the 
mute  challenge  of  facts  is  not  merely  as  to  whether  or 
not  another  and  radically  different  sort  of  explana- 
tion can  be  supposed  for  correlative  facts,  but  the 
presumption  of  a  general  unity  of  process  is  very 
strong.    Let  any  considerable  part  of  the  foregoing 
reasoning  be  admitted  and  it  is  granted  to  us  that 
the  concrete  good  or  seemingly  good  in  Altruism  is 
based  in  Egoism.    Then  it  can  safely  be  inferred  that 
it  must  be  subject  to  test  by  reference  to  the  Egoistic 
reason  for  its  existence;  in  each  case  of  a  development 
of  altruistic  motive  the  question  will  be :  is  it  service- 


A  RATIONALLY  LIMITED  ALTRUISM  WISE.  21 

able  projection,  an  indirect  means  of  Egoistic  attain- 
ment, or  is  it  an  irrational  movement,  an  aberration, 
to  which  we  have  seen  there  is  a  constant  tendency? 

Now,  the  reason  why  we  need  to  speak  with  cau- 
tion of  the  seeming  good  in  Altruism  is  not  founded 
in  any  doubt  that  rationally  limited  altruism  is  wise 
and  a  necessary  part  of  human  Egoism,  but  in  the 
circumstance  that  Altruism  appears  to  have  been  set 
up  by  some  writers  as  a  principle  separate  from  and 
independent  of  Egoism,  as  if  the  latter  were  a  prelim- 
inary ladder,  passing  from  which  they  profess  to  reach 
their  supernal  structure,  whereupon  they  would  kick 
the  ladder  from  beneath  them.    At  this  point  we  Ego- 
ists decide  that  such  Altruism,  considered  as  a  princi- 
ple, is  not  a  thing  of  parts  more  or  less  good,  but  is 
posited  as  a  rival  or  antagonistic  claim,  and  there- 
fore from  the  Egoistic  point  of  view,  is  wholly  bad. 

Here  for  illustration  we  may  take  the  analogy  of 
what  is  called  government.    If  we  say  that  each  indi- 
vidual needs  protection  from  violence  nnd  combina- 
tions for  violence,  that  therefore  the  honest  people 
should  combine  to  secure  such  protection,  this  is  well; 
but  if  upon  this  basis  a  governmental  power  is  built 
which  proves  to  be  oppressive,  we  deny  that  such  gov- 
ernment is  good,  whatever  good  acts  it  may  perform. 

VII. 

All  the  appetites  and  passions  afford  subjects  for 
observation  and  study  of  the  process  traced  in  several 
of  the  preceding  paragraphs,  but  it  is  not  my  purpose 
to  give  an  exhaustive  review  of  the  various  fixed  ideas 
and  fascinations,  orforms  of  mental  slavery.  I  would 
suggest,  as  a  useful  exercise  to  the  student  of  this  phi- 
losophy of  the  actual,  that  other  forms  of  subservi- 
ency to  fixed  ideas  be  analyzed  as  instances  present 
themselves. 

Sometimes  it  will  be  necessary  to  look  beyond  the 
individual  experience  of  the  subject.    Indeed  it  is  cer- 
tain that  heredity  plays  an  important  part  in  predis- 
posing the  individual  to  one  or  other  craze,  so  that 
he  falls  into  it  when  the  inciting  cause  arises,  or  else 


22  REVENGE  AN  ALTRUISTIC  TRAIT, 

in  organizinp^  him  with  well-balanced  powers  so  that 
be  happens  to  be  happily  proof  against  their  influence. 
For  example  it  may  be  interesting  to  the  reader  to 
take  up  for  himself  the  passion  of  revenge,  study  its 
origin  in  the  facts  of  warring  species,  families  and 
individuals,  self-defence  and  precaution,  habits  of 
thought  becoming  fixed,  the  destructive  propensity 
developed  perhaps  beyond  the  need  of  the  individual 
in  actual  circumstances,  while  the  sense  of  relation 
between  means  and  ends  is  blunted  or  lost ;  conse- 
quently when  some  hurt  is  experienced  or  appre- 
hended,— or  it  may  be  an  insult  to  his  "  honor  "  or  a 
bundle  of  Altruistic  beliefs, — the  person  seeking  self- 
protection  or  vindication  will  act  as  if  what  has  been 
destroyed  were  still  to  be  preserved  by  annihilating 
the  destroyer,  or  on  a  menace  he  will  act  with  the  en- 
ergy of  concentrated  race  experiences,  and  in  sympa- 
thy with  his  family,  nation  or  race  will  generalize  an 
injury  to  someone  as  being  precisely  the  same  as  an 
injury  to  another  or  himself,  though  in  the  case  it 
may  be  really  otherwise,  as  a  cool  judgment  might 
determine.    Thus  what  is  primarily  self-defence  leads, 
under  the  influence  of  this  passion,  and  perhaps  quite 
as  often  or  oftener  than  philanthrophy,  to  the  sacri- 
fice of  his  own  life  by  the  subject.    Such  action  has 
the  mark  of  that  supernal  Altruism  already  abund- 
antly illustrated  and  clearly  distinguished  from  a 
rational  altruism  consonant  with  the  reign  of  self- 
interest. 

We  have  now  dealt  with  Altruism  as  fact,  but  we 
have  yet  to  consider  it  as  a  preachment  of  duty.    Be- 
fore entering  upon  a  consideration  of  the  claims  of  the 
preachers  of  "moral  duty"  and  showing  what  their 
alleged  obligatory  Altruism  is, — putting  ittothe  test, 
whereupon  I  apprehend  that  it  will  be  found  to  be  eas- 
ier for  a  man  to  pass  through  a  needle's  eye  than  to 
enter  into  the  moral  kingdom  of  heaven, — 1  wish  to 
anticipate  an  objection  or  criticism  which  some  reader 
may  have  raised  in  his  own  mind  while  we  were  dis- 
cussing the  illustrations  of  fixed  ideas.    The  miser 
took  pleasure  in  hoarding  gold,  but  because  he  was 


DIVIDING  IDEAS  INTO  "SHEEP"  AND  "GOATS."  23 

under  a  fixed  idea  I  classified  him  as  in  the  bad  sense 
Altruistic ;  yet  for  an  individual  to  act  under  the  rule 
of  pleasure  is  Egoistic.    This  is  the  seeming  difficulty. 
It  is  resolved,  of  course,  by  disregarding  verbal  quib- 
bles.   The  mesmerized  subject  seems  to  act  as  an  indi- 
vidual but  he  is  under  foreign  control.    The  miser 
seems  likewise  to  act  as  an  individual  but  he  is  intox- 
icated or  mesmerized  by  the  force  of  the  idea  which 
has  obtained  an  ascendency  incompatible  with  the 
reign  of  individual  reason. 

A  further  remark  seems  appropriate  here,  and  I 
have  brought  this  case  up  partly  to  explain  how  far 
the  philosophy  of  Egoism  differs  from  the  logomachy 
of  the  Moralists,  who,  not  content  with  dividing  men 
into  sheep  and  goats,  would  be  glad  to  divide  ideas 
of  facts  in  the  same  way  and  on  the  lines  of  their  own 
prejudices.    With  them  the  facts  must  be  opposites, 
absolute  opposites  all  the  way  through,  if  there  be 
opposition  in  them  in  some  relation.    They  have  right 
and  wrong,  good  and  evil.  Altruism  and  Egoism  in 
their  brains  as  opposites.    Though  nothing  in  fact  is 
simpler  to  sound  reason  than  the  conformity  of  the 
crazy  man's  conduct  to  the  order  of  the  sane  man's 
conduct,  barring  the  substitution  of  an  abnormal 
motive  which  practically  supplants  individual  rea- 
son, the  genuine  Moralistic  theorist  does  not  want  an 
analysis  of  the  facts.    He  is  on  the  lookout  for  some 
peg  whereon  to  hang  a  charge  of  inconsistency  in  ar- 
gument.    Verbiage  is  his  stronghold  for  such  occa- 
sions.   He  may  be  painfully  surprised  to  learn  that 
we  Egoists  profess  to  find  the  Altruistic  subject  man- 
ifesting Egoistic  modes  of  operation  as  nearly  as  the 
nature  of  the  craze  will  allow,  and  that  we  find  in  this 
an  expected  corroboration  of  the  central  fact  of  or- 
ganized, sensitive  existence.     A  little  shock  or  whirl 
of  this  kind  will  prepare  the  less  fossilized  among  my 
Moralistic  readers  for  the  greater  astonishment  which 
they  must  undergo  when  they  for  the  first  time  read 
of  right  and  wrong  as  they  will  be  treated  in  these 
pages,  as  conceptions  having  each  a  separate  and  in- 
dependent origin  and  not  logically  requiring  the 


24  MORALISM  THE  GHOST  OF  THEOLOGY. 

usual  forced  moralistic  treatment  as  if  they  were  nee. 
essary  and  invariable  opposites.    Just  at  this  point, 
however,  I  need  only  say  that  modest  altruism  con- 
fesses its  foundation  and  haughty  Altruism  is  self- 
betrayed,  as  surely  as  there  is  method  in  madness. 
Altruism  is  conspicuously  selfish  to  make  gains  for 
Altruism.    Method  is  a  prime  characteristic  of  san- 
ity.   There  may  be  such  madness  as  shows  no  me- 
thod, but  it  is  rare.    The  Altruism  that  contains  no 
Egoistic  alloy  is  still  more  rare  if  it  exists  at  all.    We 
have  yet  to  look  about  and  see  whether  it  can  be 
found  and  to  examine  whether  or  nob  it  will  appear 
to  be  a  vain  profession  of  self-deluded  men  who  have 
never  contemplated  the  sacrifices  which  it  would  in- 
volve if  consistently  and  diligently  carried  into  ac- 
tion. 

vm. 

To  plead  before  a  tribunal  is  generally  under- 
stood to  be  an  acknowledgment  of  its  jurisdiction. 
The  intelligent  Egoist  does  not  seek  to  justify  his 
views  or  conduct  according  to  rules  or  principles  of 
Moralism  which  works  by  awe,  aping  theology  and 
religion,  of  which  this  Moralism  is  the  ghost.    Such 
words  as  morals,  morality,  right  and  wrong,  duty 
and  obligation  have  not  lost  their  limited  Egoistic 
meanings.    The  theoretical  Egoist  may  be  termed  a 
moralist  in  so  far  as  he  thinks  out  a  course  of  con- 
duct in  conformity  with  his  observation  and  reason. 
If  in  a  genial  way  he  soars  above  business  calcula- 
tions then  he  "sings  as  the  bird  sings."    To  him  du- 
ties imply  persons  who  have  wants  and  make  the 
non-satisfaction  of  those  wants  a  source  of  discom- 
fort to  him.    But  supernal  Moralism  with  its  abso- 
lute Duty  he  apprehends  as  a  claim  of  an  essentially 
religious  character  fettering  with  ghostly  terror  or 
enthrallment  all  who  j'^ield  to  the  mystic  spell. 

Persons  who  have  been  reared  in  a  religious  be- 
lief find  themselves  years  after  they  have  become  dis- 
believers in  the  doctrines  taught  them  in  childhood 
still  so  far  under  the  influence  of  religious  sentiment 


THE  HEREDITY  OF  PREACHING.  25 

that  light  remarks  on  the  subject  give  them  a  shock, 
and  apparently  in  the  same  way  a  generation  that 
does  not  know  God  or  ecclesiastical  authority,  a  gen- 
eration that  does  not  know  the  sacred  political  State 
and  the  sacred  authoritative  family  of  its  fathers, 
still  retains  some  portion  of  the  conscience  that 
would  fain  subjugate  Egoistic  reason.    For  thous- 
ands of  years  preachers  in  the  service  of  rulers  have 
been  preaching  Duty,  humility,  submission,  piety  to 
the  people,  and  Egoism  has  been  their  unspeakable 
horror.    In  our  day  the  results  of  criticism  applied  to 
religious  belief  are  apparent  in  general  scepticism  re- 
garding the  foundation  of  their  authority,  of  their 
dogmas.    Still  the  heredity  of  preaching,  exhorting 
and  warning  must  find  its  outlet,  to  say  nothing  of 
calculations  made  by  men  whose  wealth  is  insured  by 
the  system  of  belief  and  submission  preached,  and  to 
say  nothing  of  calculations  by  ex-preachers  of  theol- 
ogy whose  prospect  of  an  income  seems  limited  to 
finding  something  on  which  to  preach  and  by  which 
to  obtain  contributions,  and  thus  the  relations  of 
man  with  man,  philanthrophy  for  equity,  sentiment 
for  science,  serve  to  continue  the  comedy-tragedy  of 
preaching  and  servility. 

If  Shy  lock  does  not  go  to  church  he  takes  a  mag- 
azine and  enables  the  publisher  to  pay  a  few  dollars  a 
page  for  essays  on  ethics,  the  purport  of  which  is  that 
Morality,  Conscience,  Duty  reign  where  God  formerly 
reigned  and  with  much  the  same  restraining  effect ; 
that  all  honorable  men  will  agree  that  these  forces 
are  indispensable,  ineradicable  and  necessary  for  the 
conservation  of  property,  the  family,  government 
and  social  order,  hence  a  proof  of  Moral  Being  in 
man,  while  self-interest  as  a  principle  would  be  sub- 
versive of  Moral  sentiment  and  ruinous  to  society ; 
wherein  it  is  assumed  that  society  is  about  as  it  is 
desirable  to  keep  it.    By  such  process  Shylock  makes 
5000  per  cent  on  his  investment  in  Moralistic  litera- 
ture simply  in  the  economic  sphere,  as  he  is  protected 
by  the  State.    He  accepts  any  incidental  assistance 
toward  keeping  women  in  a  receptive  and  docile  con- 


26  REFORM — CONSERVATIVE  MEDIOCRITY, 

dition  of  mind  as  being  so  mucli  clear  profit,  though 
really  if  the  enterprise  had  to  be  sustained  for  this 
purpose  alone  he  must  be  a  miser  only  or  else  a  free 
lover  and  not  a  "  proper  family  man,"  if  he  did  not 
see  the  advisability  of  paying  out  the  few  dollars 
even  with  this  sole  end  in  view. 

All  reformers  who  are  not  intelligent  Egoists  or 
endowed  with  the  geuius  of  Egoism  continually  ren- 
der themselves  ridiculous  hy  complaining  of  monopo- 
lists and  tyrants.    Thereby  they  proclaim  their  Mor- 
alistic superstition.    Their  method  is  abortive.    It 
can  at  the  best  lead  people  from  one  form  of  trustful 
dependence  to  another.    At  the  worst  and  often  it 
causes  people  to  commit  acts  of  ill  considered  hostil- 
ity and  to  indulge  in  sentimental  declarations  which 
enable  cool  and  intelligent  masters  to  incite  stronger 
forces  against  the  reformers.    Reform,  indeed,  is  a 
word  for  conservative  mediocrity.     Egoism  when  un- 
derstood by  the  many  means  nothing  less  than  a 
complete  revolution  in  the  relations  of  mankind,  for 
it  is  the  exercise  of  the  powers  of  individuals  at  their 
pleasure,  and  not  a  plea  for  their  "  rights." 

The  Moralists,  or  Altruists,  come  with  a  tale  of 
Duty,  or  moral  obligation.    They  say  that  1  ought 
to  love  my  neighbor  as  myself  and  to  put  aside  my 
selfy  pleasure.    It  is  horrifying  to  them  that  I  act  on 
consciousness  of  satisfaction,  on  genial  impulse,  on 
calculation  of  gain,  and  not  in  submission  to  the 
Moralistic  judgment  of  "  conscience."    I  understand 
verv  well  that  it  is  their  ignorant  fear  of  an  independ- 
ent person  that  is  at  the  bottom  of  their  pleading. 
Thev  are  accustomed  to  think  of  a  man  as  a  danger- 
ous animal  unless  controlled  by  "conscience."    Few 
of  them  have  met  one  who  does  not  profess  to  defer  to 
such  a ' '  spiritual  guide. ' '    I  however  regard  their  "con- 
science" a«  identical  with  the  superstition  which  im- 
pels Hindoos  to  throw  themselves  beneath  the  wheels 
of  the  sacred  car  and  to  allow  sacred  animals  and  sa- 
cred men  to  devour  their  substance. 

Are  the  Altruists,  the  Moralists,  willing  to  exam- 
ine the  logic  of  their  principle  and  carry  it  out  to  its 


THE  "conscience"  SUPERSTITION.  27 

consequences?    Will  they  follow  where  it  leads? 
Then  we  need  not  insist  upon  the  prominence  of  the 
oppressive  idea  of  Duty  and  its  degradation  of  the 
individual,  but  we  may  take  their  own  favorite  idea 
of  pure,  disinterested  love  expelling  self-interest  where- 
ever  the  two  conflict.    Of  course  the  intelligent  Ego- 
ist will  perceive  that  I  am  trying  to  accommodate 
the  Altruists,  to  get  as  near  their  position  as  possi- 
ble, but  that  nevertheless  there  is  something  of  false- 
hood, of  contradiction,  in  the  idea  that  love  can  be 
other  than  a  personal  interest  in  the  object  when  love 
overcomes  other  interests  without  a  sentiment  of  sac- 
rifice arising;  and  that  if  the  consciousness  of  sacri- 
fice be  present  the  motive  is  Duty,  not  love.    How- 
ever, I  am  discussing  an  alleged  possibility, — a  life  of 
Altruistic  devotion, — and  I  do  not  expect  in  the  state- 
ment of  the  question  to  succeed  better  than  the  Mor- 
alists themselves  in  making  the  fanciful  scheme  ap- 
pear wholly  real. 

Apart  from  theology  with  its  gross  dogmatism 
about  "souls"  in  men  and  the  animals  as  "soulless" 
machines  of  flesh  and  blood,  the  dogma  of  Moralism, 
the  duty  of  love  to  others,  obviously  bears  a  direct 
and  essential  relation  to  the  capacity  of  others  to  en- 
joy and  to  suffer,  and  no  radical  distinction  can  be 
made  between  a  human  subject  and  any  other  animal. 
The  anti-vivisection  Moralists  stand  up  to  the  logic  of 
their  principle  in  one  particular  when  they  insist  that 
pain  ought  not  to  be  inflicted  upon  the  inferior  ani- 
mals for  the  advancement  of  science  intended  for  the 
benefit  of  mankind  and  not  for  the  species  or  individ- 
ual animals  operated  upon. 

The  consistent  Moralist  will  now  see  what  his  prin- 
ciple requires  of  him.    Though  the  animal,  by  reason 
of  its  inferior  intelligence  and  want  of  speech  and 
hands,  cannot  fully  express  its  complaints,  assert  its 
"rights,"  and  maintain  its  liberty,  he  will  neither  use 
his  superior  ability  to  enslave  it  nor  permit  others  to 
do  such  wrong  if  it  be  within  his  power  to  prevent 
them.    The  animal's  inability  to  participate  as  an 
equal  in  social  affairs  is  ground  for  certain  exclu- 


28  THE  ANIMAL  KINGDOM  COMES  IN. 

eions,  but  not  for  usurpation,  detention,  subjug'a- 
tion,  castration,  enforced  labor,  shearinj^  off  the  nat- 
ural coat,  robbery  of  the  mother's  milk  and  drivin<>; 
to  the  slaughter  house.    By  what  right  does  the  Mor- 
alist shoot  deer  or  crows,  cut  off  the  heads  of  chick- 
ens and  turkeys,  and  cast  his  line  or  his  net  for  fish? 
If  by  the  authority  of  God,  1  reply  that  God  is  the 
archetype  of  personal  despotism, — Egoism  without 
the  balancing  force  of  approximately  equal  powers 
in  different  individuals;  and  that  there  is  no  such 
authority.    The  philosophical  Altruist  has  left  that 
ground.    I  refuse  to  recognize  the  plea.    I  look  to  the 
Altruistic  Moralist  for  a  less  barbarian  answer.    And 
let  him  remember  the  incapable  of  his  species, — the 
idiot,  the  maniac.    Does  he  exploit  them  with  a  good 
conscience,  as  he  tames  and  rides  a  horse?    Does  he 
refrain  from  fattening  and  killing  them  only  because 
he  thinks  they  are  not  good  eating?    Where  and 
what  is  his  conscience,  then,  as  to  other  animals? 

Permit  me  to  suggest  that  a  man  is  safe  in  reflect- 
ing that  he  will  never  be  a  buffalo  or  a  rat, — unless  he 
believes  in  transmigration,  whereupon  his  unconfessed 
Egoism  crops  out,  keenly  self-regardful.    Hence  buffa- 
loes and  rats  have  no  rights  that  a  man  even  though 
a  professed  Moralist  need  respect,  except  the  right 
of  exemption  from  torture.     (Torture  is  a  bad  exam- 
ple.   It  can  be  inflicted  upon  men  as  well  as  upon 
other  animals  and  it  does  not  minister  to  any  de- 
mand of  enlightened  self-interest.)    But  what  man 
may  not  be  accused  of  feeble-mindedness  or  suffer 
some  accident  which  will  impair  his  mental  powers? 
How  then  can  self-concern  be  silent  when  one  of  his 
species  is  ill  treated  ?    The  other  animals — indeed  he 
is  never  to  be  one  of  them :  what  does  it  matter  to 
him  how^  you  use  them  so  that  you  do  not  cultivate 
cruelty  in  yourself?     (The  cruel  man  is  dangerous  to 
us  and  ours.) 

I  call  upon  the  Moralist  to  vindicate  his  doctrine 
by  applying  it  consistently  to  the  treatment  of  all  a  n- 
imals.  Confining  it  to  our  own  species  is  too  Egoistic 
to  be  deemed  pure  Moralism.    I  shall  be  very  much 


SHALL  PARASITES  HAVE  A  CLAIM?  29 

surprised  if  any  such  practical  response  comes  as  to 
disprove  my  new  version  of  scripture,  which  says  that 
the  Moral  king:dom  of  heaven  is  inaccessible  to  men 
of  ordinary  sanity.    Who  will  rejoice  to  see  the  grass- 
hopper getting  his  fill,  and  keep  sacrilegious  hands 
out  of  the  hen's  nest?    Who  will  feed  the  lambs  and 
neither  feed  upon  lamb  nor  wrap  in  woolen  blankets, 
for  conscience  sake?    One  Moralist  has  one  hobby  and 
another  has  another  hobby,  but  if  there  be  one  who 
proposes  to  live  a  life  of  self-denial  for  the  happiness 
of  all  other  sentient  beings  as  far  as  they  are  capable 
of  experiencing  pleasure,  to  respect  their  liberty  and 
embryonic  offspring  as  conscientiously  as  any  Moral- 
ist does  those  of  his  own  species,  I  shall  regard  his 
appearance  upon  this  scene  as  the  exception  which 
will  very  strikingly  illustrate  the  rule  in  individual 
conduct,  and  I  shall  be  glad  to  have  an  opportunity 
of  learning  how  he  manages  to  live. 

IX. 

If  self-renunciation  be  a  virtue,  certainly  it  is  the 
purer  when  the  sacrifice  is  made  for  individuals  of 
another  and  widely  different  species.    In  caring  for 
our  own  species  we  may  obtain  a  return,  and  we  can 
cherish  the  imagination  thereof  if  it  seems  improba- 
ble; and  so  it  is  in  caring  for  one  of  any  other  species 
between  which  and  ourselves  there  is  some  communi- 
cation of  mutual  intelligence  and  mutual  sympathy ; 
but  if  a  man  wants  to  show  pure  disinterestedness  let 
him  sacrifice  his  pleasure,  his  comfort  and  his  life  for 
other  species  that  will  neither  understand  nor  return 
the  manifestation  of  benevolence.    Such  a  supernal 
Altruist  will  reject  cleanliness  as  a  sin,  if  convinced, 
as  he  must  be  by  ordinary  observation,  that  para- 
sites thrive  best  on  the  human  body  when  there  is  an 
entire  avoidance  of  soap  and  water.    Such  a  self-de- 
nying Moralist  will  not  dress  a  wound  or  purify  his 
blood,  for  these  practices  mean  death  to  animalcules. 
Here  I  am  reminded  of  the  story  of  the  devout  Hin- 
doo who  was  horrified  on  looking  at  a  drop  of  water 
through  a  powerful  microscope.    He  found  to  his  con- 


30  freethinkers'  superstitions. 

Btemation  that  he  could  not  drink  without  destroy- 
ing life. 

Supernal  Moralisni  should  be  viewed  sometimes 
from  the  point  of  view  of  universal  animal  motives 
and  conduct,  excludino-  the  idea  of  selflessness.    If  the 
survival  of  the  fittest  be  not  an  empty  phrase,  super- 
nal Moralism  is  an  excessively  silly  insanity.    The 
"  sacredness  "  of  the  germs  of  human  life  is  impressed 
upon  the  mind  of  the  devotee  of  Moralism,  and  in 
some  cases  the  result  is  that  a  child  is  born  as  the  off- 
spring of  rape.    The  simple,  pious  people  may  wonder 
that  "  God  "  can  assist  in  giving  effect  to  crime.    The 
supernal  Moralist  who  prides  himself  on  scientific  ac- 
quirements may  well  feel  confused  when  a  hybrid  form 
appears  as  a  practical  commentary  upon  the  alleged 
"  sacred  ness." 

Spiritual  terror,  the  strangest,  most  melancholy 
phenomenon  in  human  motive,  is  essentially  the  same 
influence,  while  it  lasts,  in  the  man  or  woman  claim- 
ing to  be  emancipated  from  theological  dogmas,  as 
in  the  believer  in  those  dogmas.    It  usually  remains 
after  its  generally  supposed  root  is  destroyed,  in  the 
Agnostic,  like  an  air-plant.    This  indicates  that  its 
foundation  is  not  precisely  where  some  anti-theolog- 
ical writers  suppose.    Mere  disbelief  in  Jehovah  may 
leave  the  agnostic  mind  subject  to  fixed  ideas  of  a 
most  irrational  character.    The  belief  in  Jehovah  in 
the  first  place  occupied  an  ignorant  mind  and  when 
that  belief  is  expelled  neither  ignorance  nor  fear  is  al- 
together banished.    There  is  some  improvement  in 
the  prospect  for  positive  Egoistic  thought  and  senti- 
ment to  occupy  its  own.    There  remain,  however,  nu- 
merous fixed  ideas  of  Duty  to  Society,  Duty  to  the 
State,  Duty  to  Humanity,  and  such  rubbish,  which 
are  fertile  of  intoxicating  and  paralyzing  influences, 
and  our  talking  Freethinkers  in  general  still  shudder 
to  contemplate  a  person  uncontrolled  by  such  "re- 
straining influences."    They  imagine,  after  all,  that 
he  will  go  to  the  devil  or  run  amuck  without  moral 
"restraint."    The  triumph  of  sanity,  then,  lies  not 
in  the  expulsion  of  any  one  form  of  insanity,  but  in 


MYSTIC  "duty."  31 

the  acquisition  of  an  Egoistic  consciousness  and  self- 
control. 

X. 

Under  the  head  of  Religion  Webster's  dictionary 
says:  "As  distinguished  from  morality,  religion  de- 
notes the  influences  and  motives  to  human  duty 
which  are  found  in  the  character  and  will  of  God, 
while  morality  describes  the  duties  to  man,  to  which 
true  religion  always  influences."    Granted  belief  in  a 
personal  ruler,  submission  to  his  will  is  prudence,  and 
prudence  is  Egoistic.    With  this  conception  the  duty 
spoken  of  is  not  mysterious :  it  is  service  by  a  sub- 
ject,— the  slave's  submission  to  the  power  which  he 
fears.    He  believes  that  the  sovereign  ruler  has  laid 
upon  him  special  commands  favoring  his  species  and 
therefore  he  must  treat  men  better  than  other  ani- 
mals.   If  this  belief  be  an  error,  still  there  is  no  line 
to  be  drawn  between  the  alleged  duty  and  his  inter- 
est.   There  is  no  disinterestedness  or  generosity  in 
religious  duty  or  moral  duty, — or  say  rather  in  duty 
to  God  or  man,  for  both  are  ultimately  duty  to  the 
supposed  heavenly'  master. 

But  Morahsts,  having  gained  some  rational  ideas 
of  mutual  relations,  while  unhappily  ignoring  the 
fact  that  these  ideas  are  the  proper  foundation  of 
willingly  assumed  mutual  duties,  fancy  that  they 
have  discovered  the  justice  of  the  alleged  divine  com- 
mand or  will,  which  is  nothing  but  a  reflection  of 
their  own  thoughts,  and  thenceforth  they  fall  under 
the  hallucination  of  mystic  Duty,  independent  of 
either  calculation  or  pleasure.    It  is  one  task  of  Ego- 
istic philosophy  to  analyze  this  notion  of  theirs  as  a 
confusion  of  ideas.    They  go  so  far  in  some  instances 
as  to  dismiss  belief  in  a  moral  lawgiver  of  the  uni- 
verse and  yet  remain  under  the  same  fascination  to 
Duty  as  if  they  had  him,  and  his  will  were  equitable, 
and  their  servility  were  swallowed  up  in  admiration 
of  his  justice.    What  they  lack  is  the  insight  to  per- 
ceive that  conduct  which  makes  for  the  good  of  the 
species  is  naturally  agreeable  to  the  feeling  of  each 


32  MUTUAL  INTERESTS  NOT  *'  DUTY." 

well  developed  Individual,  hence  that  the  conception 
of  Duty  is  scepticism  as  to  spontaneity.    The  fixed 
idea  of  Duty  unrelated  to  interest  and  not  reducible 
to  calculation,  arises  by  abstraction  and  fascination 
like  other  aberrations  reviewed  in  preceding  pages. 
It  reaches  clear  insanity  in  self-sacrifice  if  this  occur 
in  unreasoning  ecstacy. 

Of  course  one  self-inflicted  pain  of  some  particular 
kind  or  even  death  is  sometimes  chosen  in  .order  to 
terminate  anguish  which  none  but  the  subject  can  ap- 
preciate.   In  such  cases  the  action  is  Egoistic,  though 
it  may  be  of  a  terribly  ignorant  sort,  as  for  example, 
when  the  cause  of  the  pain  is  an  imaginary  object  or 
such  a  real  relation  as  is  humiliating  to  the  person's 
feeling  only  because  of  irrational  notions  about  it. 

If  uiorality  be  regarded  from  the  point  of  view  of 
the  social  utilitarian,  as  that  course  of  conduct  which 
promotes  the  welfare  of  the  species,  it  is  only  neces- 
sary to  repeat  that  the  species  acts  as  Egoistically  as  . 
it  can.    It  cheerfully  sacrifices  individuals  to  its  own 
welfare.    It  has  a  subtle  economy  of  means  in  plant- 
ing Altruistic  conceits  in  those  that  are  willing  to  en- 
tertain them.    When  intelligence  comes  to  recognize 
mutual  interest  this  instinctive  trickery  of  social  in- 
fluence will  vanish,  no  longer  seeming  to  be  needed. 

As  for  the  virtues,  such  as  benevolence,  every  ob- 
serving person  knows  that  we  seek  to  get  rid  of  pain- 
ful impressions.    Such,  usually,  are  those  of  suffering 
in  others.    Many  writers  have  pointed  out  how  pity 
is  stirred  by  the  sight  of  wasted  bodies  and  hearing 
the  cry  of  pain,  and  how  much  weaker  it  is  when  only 
an  ordinary  description  is  given  of  the  occasion ;  also 
how  much  more  ready  the  poor  are  to  help  other  poor 
people  than  the  rich  are.    What  has  perhaps  not  been 
so  generally  observed  is  the  reason  for  this,  viz.,  that 
the  rich  do  not  feel  that  they  are  likely  to  need  alms, 
while  the  poor  are  on  the  edge  of  such  need.    There  is 
quite  enough  in  the  difference  of  circumstances  to 
make  it  instructive,  although  at  the  same  time,  per- 
sonal character  varying  in  susceptibility,  it  is  doubt, 
less  true  also  that  those  most  inclined  to  benevolence 


EGOISM  AN  EPOCH  IN  MENTAL  PROGRESSION.  33 

are  most  likely  to  be  poor  in  a  society  like  ours,  where 
money  is  supposed  topjrow  by  lending  and  profits  are 
consolidated  from  the  results  of  unpaid  labor. 

XI. 

The  suggestion  has  been  heard  that  if  all  acts  are 
Egoistic  this  term  has  no  distinctive  meaning.    The 
same  thing  has  often  been  said  as  to  "matter"  when 
the  Materialist  has  affirmed  that  there  is  no  "spirit," 
— no  opposite  of  matter.    Matter  then  becomes  syn- 
onymcms  simply  with  existence.    The  Materialist  re- 
plies that  he  is  content  with  the  conclusion  that  there 
is  no  alleged  existence  unrelated  to  other  and  known 
existence;  none  exempt  from  manifestation  according 
to  a  regular  order  or  subject  to  the  inherent  law  of 
its  being,  to  speak  according  to  appearances.    There 
is  a  regular  order  of  succession  of  phenomena.    The 
Spiritual  theory  asserts  a  break  in  what  is  popularly 
called  "the  reign  of  natural  law,"  Materialism  denies 
such  assertion  and  exists  as  a  distinctive  ism  to  deny 
and  disprove  it.    This  statement  will  indicate  in  part 
what  is  the  proper  reply  when  it  is  charged  that  Ego- 
ism is  almost  meaningless  if  it  embrace  all  acts.    It 
was  believed  that  men  acted  disinterestedly.    Closer 
examination  finds  the  motive  and  the  form  of  their 
interest.    Thus  a  parallel  to  the  progress  made  from 
the  time  when  men  believed  in  miracles  to  the  time 
when  they  have  learned  enough  of  natural  law  to  ex- 
pel the  former  belief. 

By  referring  to  the  definition  already  given  of 
Egoism  it  will  be  seen  that  it  covers  a  theory  as  well 
as  facts.    If  every  act  of  every  animal  were  perfectly 
Egoistic,  nevertheless  the  demands  of  intelligence 
would  not  be  satisfied  without  understanding  the 
phenomena,  which  are  explained  according  to  nat- 
ural law  as  reactions  of  individual  will  to  motives 
presented  in  circumstances.    To  act  Egoistically  is 
universal,  but  to  be  in  part  ignorant  of  the  fact 
seems  to  be  also  nearly  universal.    The  theory  of 
Egoism  has  its  opposite  in  the  theory  of  Altruism, 
evidently  joined  to  Spiritualism  by  ignoring  and  de- 


34  RIGHT   MEANS   STRAIGHT. 

nying  the  necessary  sequence  in  phenomena.     (1  make 
no  allusion  to  modern  Spiritualism,  which  professes 
to  be  Materialistic.) 

But  beyond  this  it  can  be  firmly  said  that  until 
the  Egoistic  theory  is  understood  and  has  had  its  full 
influence  upon  character,  those  irrational  actions  will 
continue  which  are  the  fruit  of  error,  illusion,  fascina- 
tion, fixed  ideas,  rendering  the  individual  practically 
not  an  Ego, — not  in  the  possession  of  his  faculties, — 
hence  there  will  be,  as  there  are,  actions  not  properly 
Egoistic,  but  insane,  though  not  generally  so  under- 
stood.   Thus  the  Egoistic  theory  has  a  practical  pur- 
pose.   The  half  insane, — that  is  to  say  all  worshipers, 
religious,  political  or  personal, — are  to  come  to  con- 
sciousness of  their  individuality  and  become  wholly 
sane. 

As  to  submissive  actions  performed  simply  under 
fear  or  hope,  their  Egoistic  character  is  quite  clear. 

XII. 

The  word  right  has  the  same  fundamental  mean- 
ing as  straight.     When  no  obstacle  stands  or  lies  be- 
tween an  animal  and  the  object  of  its  desire,  the  short- 
est way,  which  is  a  straight  line,  is  the  way  the  animal 
takes  to  reach  the  object ;  but  when  approach  by  a 
right  line  is  impracticable  the  nearest  known  path  is 
chosen,  all  considerations  such  a-s  safety  being  weighed 
according  to  intelligence.    This  is  then  the  line  of  least 
resistance, — the  one  most  approximating  in  conveni- 
ence to  a  right  line.    The  right  hand  is  so  named  be- 
cause usually  the  stronger  and  more  serviceable.    A 
man's  right  is  his  straight  way  to  the  satisfaction  of 
his  desires,  and  he  takes  no  other  way  except  under 
adverse  circumstances  or  hallucination. 

It  will  be  objected  by  Moralists  that  such  an  ex- 
position of  right  reduces  it  to  nothing  but  might.  In 
this  inference  they  are  correct,  but  their  objection  does 
not  disturb  Egoistic  philosophy,  which  regards  their 
alleged  supernal,  sacred  Right  as  a  superstition.  I 
have  a  right  to  what  I  can  take  and  openly  keep,  and 
another  has  a  right  to  take  it  from  me  if  he  can. 


RIGHT,  "  RIGHT  "  KOR  THE  INDIVIDUAL.  35 

Those,  however,  who  beheve  that  a  superior  author- 
ity has  laid  down  a  rule  to  which  they  must  conform, 
will  take  up  that  rule  or  law  as  they  understand  it, 
and  their  idea  of  right  will  be  that  of  conformity  to 
the  command  of  the  authority.    The  Moralist  is  un- 
der an  impression  that  instead  of  pursuino:  his  own 
pleasure  he  has  to  fulfill  a  purpose  which  may  be  at 
variance  with  his  pleasure.    His  conception  of  Right 
is  not  an  Egoistic  conception.    He  has  surrendered 
himself,  and  with  himself  his  own  right,  and  has  be- 
gun to  serve  an  abstraction.    He  is  in  the  way  to 
commit  great  folly  and  wrong  to  himself.    To  the 
Morahst  Right  and  Wrong  are  two  fixed  ideas,  for- 
ever in  opposition  in  all  senses.    To  the  intelligent 
Egoist  they  are  two  words  generally  perverted  from 
their  meaning  and  used  as  scarecrows.    There  is  a 
frequent  clash  between  the  right  of  one  and  the  right 
of  another,  and  they  fight  it  out.    It  is  settled  by  the 
triumph  of  one  and  the  defeat  of  the  other.    Max 
Stirner  in  his  matchless  book,  Der  Einzige  und  sein 
Eigenthum  (the  Individual  and  his  Property),  says: 
1st  es  mir  recht,  so  ist  es  recht  (If  it  suits  me,  it  is 
right.)    The  Moralist  would  say :  if  it  be  right  for 
me;  thus  implying  that  he  is  under  some  mysterious 
authority.    The  Egoist  would  not  use  the  latter  prep- 
osition except  when  recognizing  some  law  or  definite 
arrangement  which  prescribes  certain  rights.    When 
I  say :  "if  it  be  right  for  me — ,"  I  admit  an  authority. 
Now  in  fact  I  must  often  admit  one — ,  that  is  a  power, 
— but  I  admit  it  simply  as  a  power,  not  at  all  as  the 
Moralist  admits  it.    I  do  not  bow  down  to  it  in  my 
thought  or  regard  it  as  anything  but  an  enemy  to 
my  freedom,  and  if  it  cease  to  assert  its  power  and  to 
compel  me  by  penalty  or  the  prospect  of  penalty,  I 
assert  my  full  power  to  do  my  own  pleasure  and  noth- 
ing but  my  own  pleasure.    The  Moralist  consents  to 
serve  as  his  own  jailer;  not  so  the  Egoist.    Assert 
your  right,  your  power,  your  pleasure.    I  claim  none 
of  that,  I  assert  my  own.    I  appeal  to  no  Moral  law 
of  the  world.    I  recognize  none.    We  shall  find  our 
mt;ei'ests  coincide  or  we  shall  give  each  other  battle 


36  WRONG — TO  WRING,  TO  TWIST. 

Dr  we  shall  steer  clear  of  each  other,  according'  to  cir- 
cumstances. 

In  words  jou  can  assert  my  right,  but  when  you 
attempt  to  do  so  in  deeds  you  succeed  only  in  assert- 
ing your  own  right.    I  alone  can  prove  my  right  by 
deeds. 

The  Moralist  pretends  to  be  under  an  obligation 
to  respect  the  rights  of  others  and  never  do  them  any 
wrong;  but  he  defines  their  rights  and  does  not  allow 
them  all  their  rights.    He  abdicates  his  own  and  crip- 
ples theirs  and  then  flatters  himself  that  the  mutila- 
tion and  effacement  constitute  superior  Right.    He 
protests  against  Egoism  because  it  wrongs  his  sj's- 
tem.    At  times  heimagines  that  the  Egoist  must  talk 
in  the  language  of  Moralism  and  must  mean  that  in 
acting  with  Egoistic  right  the  Egoist  would  pretend 
not  to  do  wrong  to  another;  wherein  the  Moralist 
becomes  absurd,  for  the  Egoist  does  not  pretend  that 
he  can  always  exercise  his  right  without  wrong  to  an- 
other.   It  is  a  matter  of  expediency  with  the  Egoist 
what  wrong  to  another  he  shall  do. 

"Right  wrongs  no  man,"  exclaims  the  landlord, 
and  drives  the  tenant  out  of  a  house.    The  inclement 
weather  beats  upon  the  unsheltered,  and  their  nerves 
are  wrung.    The  landlord  exercises  his  right,  but  lies 
moralistically. 

The  word  wrong  is  a  variation  upon  the  past  par- 
ticiple of  the  verb  to  wring,  to  twist.  Victor  and  van- 
quished are  two,  and  the  Moralist  simply  looks  away 
Erom  the  facts  of  life  when  he  preaches  a  universal  nat- 
ural Right  and  ignores  individuals  with  their  various 
wants  and  powers  and  the  probability  that  what  is 
good  to  one  may  entail  some  ill  upon  another. 

But  the  species?    The  Moralist,  driven  from  the 
former  position  of  a  divinity  ordering  all  things  in 
harmony  in  the  world,  or  at  least  the  conceit  that  his 
own  species  is  favored  at  the  expense  of  all  below  it, 
and  this  not  by  its  intelligence  but  by  a  divine  decree 
arbitrarily  making  the  spoilation  of  the  world  and 
rule  over  inferior  animals  Right,  takes  refuge  in  a 
belief  that  the  welfare  of  the  species  may  give  Moral 


SAVING  THE  INDIVIDUAL  SAVES  THE  SPECIES.  37 

law  to  the  individual.    Hence  the  dogma  that  the  in- 
dividual exists  for  the  species.    Were  it  so,  the  indi- 
vidual might  insist  upon  existing  at  any  cost,  assum- 
ing that  he  is  what  he  knows  best  of  the  species,  and 
that  his  stubborn  will  might  probably  be  a  provis- 
ion for  the  species.    That  is  Right,  says  the  Moralist, 
which  best  serves  the  species.    And  what  best  serves 
the  species?    The  Moralist  will  generally  reply:  "that 
which  is  Right,"  thus  completing  a  little  circle  in  dog- 
matism.   Nature,  however,  seems  to  say  that  species 
survive  by  the  survival  of  their  indi viduals.    The  Ego- 
ist will  find  in  himself  certain  loves  and  aversions, 
and  he  may  think  that  the  species  is  taking  care  of  it- 
self just  in  proportion  as  he  is  following  those  paths 
which  give  him  satisfaction. 

The  Moralist,  becoming  more  philosophical,  sug- 
gests that  the  war  of  interests  will  cease  as  men  under- 
stand their  similar  needs  and  the  possibility  of  mutual 
benefit,  hence  wrongs  in  the  species  may  become  fewer 
or  cease.    With  all  our  heart,  say  the  Egoists,  only 
you  are  not  to  begin  by  sacrificing  us.    If  the  later 
Moralism  be  merely  a  prophetic  dream  of  a  harmony 
of  interests  through  wisdom,  we  are  not  without  hope 
that  at  last  the  dreamers  will  recognize  individuality 
as  the  condition  precedent  to  the  fulfillment  of  their 
hopes.    The  fellow  feeling  in  the  species  is  a  certain 
fact.    Let  us  take  it  for  what  we  find  it  to  be  and  not 
attempt  to  place  it  in  antagonism  to  our  individuali- 
ties.   As  these  are  developed  the  necessity  will  appear 
for  each  one  to  recognize  somewhat  the  individuals  of 
his  species,  and  thus  the  "  claims  of  the  species  "  will 
be  recognized. 

xm. 

Self-interest  masks  itself  and  says  suavely  "we 
seek  the  good  of  the  species,"  instead  of  saying 
bluntly,  "  we  gladly  pick  up  all  that  other  individuals 
let  slip  from  their  grasp."    Are  not  we  the  species  as 
contradistinguished  from  any  individual?    When  we 
go  so  far  as  to  urge  sacrifices  for  the  good  of  the 
species  what  are  we  but  beggars  and  hypocrites? 


38  SOME   SPENCERTAN   SOPHISTRY. 

Persuasion  is  mingled  freely  with  flattery  adminis- 
tered to  the  vanity  of  the  individual,  and  it  is  not  to 
be  ignored  that  the  Moral  philosopher  flatters  him- 
self as  he  proceeds  to  render  what  he  vainly  imagines 
to  be  a  service  to  his  species.    Assuming  the  point  of 
view  that  he  is  spokesman  for  the  species,  the  dictum 
that  that  is  good  conduct  which  promotes  the  inter- 
ests of  the  species,  is  a  subtle  mendicancy  or  a  veiled 
terror  in  the  supposed  interest  of  the  crowd.    But 
assuming  an  individual  point  of  view  the  question  is 
differently  shaped.    It  then  becomes:  what  use  can  I 
make  of  the  species,  of  the  crowd? 

A  summary  of  ethical  teachings  of  Herbert  Spen- 
cer sa3's  that  postulating  the  desirability  of  the  pres- 
ervation and  prosperity  of  the  given  species,  there 
emerges  the  general  conclusion  that  "  in  order  of  ob- 
ligation the  preservation  of  the  species  takes  prece- 
dence of  the  preservation  of  the  individual."    The 
species  he  admits,  "has  no  existence  save  as  an  ag- 
gregate of  individuals,"  and  hence  "the  welfare  of  the 
species  is  an  end  to  be  subserved  only  as  subserving 
the  welfare  of  individuals,"  but,  continues  the  sum- 
mary, "since  disappearance  of  the  species  involves 
absolute  failure  in  achieving  the  end,  whereas  disap- 
pearance of  individuals  makes  fulfillment  simply  • 
somewhat  more  difficult,  'the  preservation  of  the  in- 
dividual must  be  subordinated  to  the  preservation  of 
the  species  where  the  two  conflict.' "       , 

There  are  several  featui-es  of  sophistry  in  this. 
Let  us.  however,  note  first  the  admission  that  "the 
species"  is  simply  a  convenient  term.    Now,  where 
confusion  is  possible  the  safe  way  is  to  lay  aside  the 
term.    When  this  is  done  it  will  be  found  that  in  re- 
stating the  foregoing  propositions  it  becomes  neces- 
sary to  speak,  instead,  either  of  all  the  individuals 
concerned  except  one  or  of  all  the  individuals  con- 
cerned, without  exception.    But  he  has  seemingly  used 
the  term  species  in  both  senses  or  else,  with  his  "order 
of  obligation,"  he  has  affirmed  an  obligation  to  sub- 
ordinate the  preservation  of  one  individual  to  that  of 
another.    As  this  is  intelligible  for  the  purpose  of  the 


THE  le:tter  a,  answers  :  "  BOSH !  "  39 

crowd  dealing  with  individuals  but  not  for  the  indi- 
vidual acting"  for  himself  with  himself  as  the  victim, 
the  immediate  inference  at  this  point  is  that  Spencer 
is  expounding  the  Egoistic  logic  of  the  crowd. 

If  the  welfare  of  others  is  subserved  only  as  sub- 
serving my  welfare,  it  can  never  be  true  that  I  must 
subordinate  my  preservation  to  that  of  others,  for 
this  is  to  divert  the  general  rule,  which  applies  while  1 
am  one  of  the  crowd,  to  the  exceptional  case  wherein 
I  am  set  apart  from  the  crowd.    All  conditions  of 
benefit  impl^^  at  least  preservation.    When  I  am 
counted  out  for  non-preservation,  for  the  good  of 
others,  it  must  be  the  others,  not  1,  who  do  the  count- 
ing out.    In  the  first  premise  Spencer  speaks  for  the 
individual  treating  the  crowd  from  his  proper  motive; 
but  in  the  conclusion  he  speaks  for  the  crowd  or  some 
of  its  preserved  part  contemplating  the  sacrifice  of 
an  individual,  yet  these  shifting  points  of  view  are 
included  in  a  syllogism.    The  welfare  of  the  crowd  a 
mediate  end :  that  is  reasonable  to  the  individual. 
The  preservation  of  the  individual  a  mediate  end  to 
the  crowd :  that  is  reasonable  from  the  crowd's  point 
of  view ;  but  anah^sis  of  the  diverse  points  of  view  is 
needed,  not  an  attempt  to  link  the  two  in  a  syllogism 
the  conclusion  of  which  is  merely  the  crowd's  conclu- 
sion. 

Now  examine  the  second  premise  of  the  syllogism: 
"the  disappearance  of  the  species  involves  absolute 
failure  in  achieving  theend."     Why, in  fact?    Because 
the  disappearance  of  all  others  of  the  species  but  my- 
self involves  it?    Not  at  all ;  but  because  the  term 
species  includes  myself.    But  as  far  as  my  existence  is 
concerned  it  would  be  the  same  if  1  alone  disappeared. 
Do  you  say  :  the  preservation  of  the  alphabet  is  of  no 
use  to  A  except  as  A  combines  with  other  letters ;  but 
the  disappearance  of  the  alphabet  wor^  1  involve  the 
disappearance  of  A;  hence  the  preservation  of  one  let- 
ter (A)  is  less  important  than  the  preservation  of  all 
the  other  letters?    The  letter  A  answers :  " Bosh !" 

Speaking  forthe  individual,  how  does  the  doctrine 
of  subordination  of  the  preservation  of  the  individual 


40  THE  GENUS  NEVER  ENCOURAGES  NEW  SPECTES. 

accord  with  evolutionary  theory  regarding;  the  origin 
of  species?  Do  species  originate  by  individuals  tak- 
ing care  of  themselves  under  whatever  circumstances, 
if  possible,  or  by  the  contrary  rule  of  their  benevolence 
toward  the  pre-existing  species  ?  The  reader  can  pur- 
sue this  inquiry  for  himself;  but  I  should  like  to  sug- 
gest that  what  has  been  considered  regarding  the  in- 
dividual and  the  species  can  be  paraphrased  with  ref. 
erence  to  the  species  and  the  genus  under  which  it  is 
classified,  thus : 

The  welfare  of  the  genus  is  to  be  subserved  only 
as  subserving  the  welfare  of  the  species,  but  since  the 
disappearance  of  the  genus  involves  absolute  failure, 
whereas  disappearance  of  particular  species  makes 
fulfillment  simply  somewhat  more  difficult,  therefore 
the  preservation  of  the  species  must  be  subordinated 
to  the  preservation  of  the  genus  where  the  two  con- 
flict.   The  fallacy  of  this  sort  of  reasoning  may  ap- 
pear without  comment,  inasmuch  as  the  individual 
will  easily  maintain  the  point  of  view  of  the  interested 
species,  and  will  not  practically  allow  himself  to  slide 
over  to  the  position  of  the  presuming  genus.    A  sup- 
plementary remark  may  be  indulged.    The  genus 
never  licenses  or  encourages  the  origination  of  new 
species ;  but  then  the  verbal  sophistry  of  the  genus 
would  not  prove  to  be  a  preventive. 

1  pass  by  the  small  occasion  of  confusion  in  the 
use  of  the  word  "end,"  the  second  time,  in  the  forego- 
ing statement.    Total  failure  may  be  assumed  to  re- 
fer to  failure  of  the  ultimate  aim. 

XIV. 

Duty  is  that  which  is  due.  I  ought  is  I  owe  or  I 
owed.  Some  duties  I  assume  for  duties  assumed  by 
others  toward  me.  This  is  reciprocity.  Somealleged 
duties  the  Moralist  tells  me  that  I  ought  to  acknowl- 
edge and  perform  from  a  sense  of  Duty.  If  1  then  say 
that  it  is  a  superstition  he  perhaps  severs  himself  for 
the  moment  from  the  superstitious  crowd  and  claims 
that  it  is  only  a  generalization,  meaning  fitness,  sav- 
ing tiresome  repetition  of  analysis ;  it  is  my  interest 


"  DUTY  "  IS  MENTAL  SLAVERY.  41 

after  all.    He  is  somewhat  disingenuous  here,  for  if  it 
be  only  my  interest  embodied  in  a  thouf^ht-saving 
generalization,  it  will  bear  analysis  and  always  come 
out  as  my  interest.    But  he  has  the  "  social  organ- 
ism "  in  mind,  to  the  preservation  of  which  my  indi- 
vidual welfare  is  to  be  subordinated,  according  to  his 
idea.    The  "social  organism  "  idea  has  captured  him 
and  he  is  using  decoy  argument  to  obtain  from  me  a 
sacrifice  of  myself  to  his  idol,  his  spiritual  monster. 

A  man  is  hired  to  do  certain  work,  and  that  is 
then  called  his  duty ;  or  exchange  of  services  grows 
into  a  mutual  understanding;  the  debt  is  first  on  one 
side  and  then  on  the  other,  and  what  at  any  time  is 
expected,  to  balance  the  account  or  turn  the  scale 
as  usual  and  create  another  claim  so  as  to  continue 
the  niutually  advantageous  arrangement  or  under- 
standing, is  also  called  one's  duty.    Where  service  is 
compulsory  it  is  likewise  called  duty. 

Moralism,  when  it  has  gained  enlightenment  enough 
to  reject  slavery  to  a  person,  under  the  subjection  of 
mind  overawed  by  physical  force,  denies  that  the  slave's 
duty  is  Duty.    But  if  the  slave  has  yielded  his  mind  to 
his  master  the  phenomenon  is  clearly  that  of  Duty. 
When  the  Egoist  is  conscripted  he  does  not  argue  that 
his  assigned  duty  is  not  Duty.    It  is  servitude  con- 
trary to  his  interest,  and  this  consideration  is  enough. 
The  fact  that  some  slaves  are  governed  by  a  sense  of 
Duty  furnishes  the  plainest  evidence  that  Duty  is 
mental  slavery. 

But  the  Moralist  will  claim  for  Duty  that  it  is  not 
always  mental  slavery.    It  is  true  that  he  can  confuse 
the  issue  by  using  the  word  Duty  to  describe  all  those 
habitual  actions  in  the  doing  of  which  no  immediate 
benefit  to  self  is  thought  of;  but  let  us  keep  to  the 
plain  sense.    Duty  is  what  is  due.    The  domination 
of  a  fixed  idea  begins  when  one  admits  something  due 
and  yet  not  due  to  any  person  or  something  due  with- 
out benefit  coming  to  one  in  return ;  and  of  course 
when  a  return  benefit  is  calculated  upon  the  idea  is 
int-erest. 


42  DUTY,  "ought,"  legitimate  VVOKDte. 

Wheu  interest  is  sublimated  so  as  to  lose  si^ht  of 
self  it  assumes  the  form  of  love  in  the  absence  of  op- 
pression.   Evidently  the  presence  of  fear  in  the  causa- 
tive circumst-ances  corrupts  the  sublimating  process 
and  results  in  the  oppressive  sense  of  Duty.    It  is  pos- 
sible for  the  Moralist,  finding  a  series  of  admirable  ac- 
tions which  are  well-nigh  perfect  love  or  gratitude,  to 
call  these  Duty,  on  an  examination  which  will  show 
that  were  the  doer  to  stud^^  his  conduct  he  could  find 
in  it  the  elements  which  would  s6rve  to  construct  a 
wise  scheme  of  reciprocal  duties.    If  the  Moralist  talks 
of  Duty  when  the  fact  is  spontaneity, — whether  grati- 
tude, love,  overflowing  pride  or  generosity  advanc- 
ing to  aid  all  that  is  seen  to  make  for  our  good,  he 
talks  at  random.    His  system  of  thought  has  predi- 
cated that  men  need  to  be  controlled  by  a  sense  of 
Duty.    Let  him  stick  to  that  or  leave  it.    We  deny  it. 
The  doctrine  of  hell-fire  was  long  upheld  under  the 
same  idea  that  it  was  needed  to  control  men.    Moral- 
istic Duty  is  the  hardened  dregs  of  fear.    Generosity 
is  the  overflowing  fullness  of  a  successful,  satisfied 
and  hopeful  individuality. 

"I  ought"  is  no  stumbling-block  to  the  intelligent 
Egoist.    Two  persons  are  playing  at  draughts  and  a 
bystander  says  of  one:  "  He  ought  to  have  captured 
the  man  to  the  left,  not  the  one  to  the  right."    There 
is  no  sense  of  moral  obligation  conveyed  in  the  re- 
mark.   It  is  assumed  that  each  player  is  trying  to 
win,  and  the  words  "he  ought"  introduce  a  sugges- 
tion of  what  was  wanting  to  produce  the  result.    A 
pirate  endeavoring  to  capture  a  merchantman  and 
taking  the  wrong  course  would  say :  "  I  ought  to 
have  sailed  on  the  other  tack."    To  whom  was  the 
obhgation?    To  himself.    So  men  speak  of  their  duty 
to  themselves,  meaning  the  attending  to  supplying 
what  is  lacking  to  their  welfare. 

These  words  duty  and  ought  are  not  words  to  be 
rejected.    They  are  in  constant  correct  use  in  every- 
day life,  and  it  is  not  the  use  of  the  Moralist,  but  it 
can  be  observed  that  every  humbug  politician  harps 
on  the  "sacred  duty  "  of  the  citizens  to  do  this  or 


CONSCIENCE  AND  INDOCTRINATION.  43 

that,— something  that  he  and  his  party  are  inter- 
ested in  and  that  he  cannot  readily  prove  to  be  to 
the  interest  of  the  citizens  addressed,  or  he  would  do 
so  instead  of  trying  to  get  them  with  him  on  an  ap- 
peal to  "sacred  duty." 

XV. 

The  supposed  inward  monitor  which  warns  the 
Moralist  against  breaking  the  sacred  law  of  Right, 
as  it  admonishes  the  believer  against  offending  God, 
is  that  which  "doth  make  cowards  of  us  all,"  in  the 
language  of  the  dramatist.    That  is  conscience.    One 
thinks  he  knows  his  Duty  and  with  this  thought  come 
vague  fear  and  self-reproacli  for  not  having  obeyed 
the  Moral  law;  not  simple  fear  in  the  Moralist,  rather 
a  confused  feeling,  but  a  feeling  as  clearly  distinguish- 
able from  the  simple  fear  of  consequences  asMoralism 
is  distinguishable  from  a  calculation  of  interest.    The 
dread  is  as  undefined  as  the  Authority  or  the  reach  of 
consequences,  or  both,  are  indefinite  and  dimly  ap- 
prehended. 

The  fgct  that  the  dictates  of  conscience  are  the 
result  of  so-called  "education  "  (really  indoctrina- 
tion) is  established  by  the  strongest  proof  on  every 
hand.    Every  religion  has  its  commandments  and 
however  absurd  they  may  appear  to  others  than  the 
believers,  conscience  enforces  their  observance.    Mor- 
alism  continues  in  a  general  way  the  religious  terror, 
making  humanity  or  it  may  be  more  broadly  animal 
life  the  sacred  object. 

Egoism,  on  the  contrary,  regards  conscience  as 
superstition.    It  is  true  that  by  simple  analysis  of 
the  word,  which  yields  con,  with,  and  science,  knowl- 
edge, we  can  have  the  definition :  the  sensation,  senti- 
ment or  reflection  regarding  ourselves  which  accom- 
panies knowledge  of  our  voluntary  action.    But  as 
an  Egoist  has  simply  either  satisfaction  or  regret  and 
does  not  judge  himself  by  reference  to  any  standard 
of  Duty,  he  cannot  have  a  guilty  conscience. 

It  is  most  to  the  purpose,  therefore,  of  Egoistic 
philosophy  to  look  into  the  means  of  destroying  the 
goperstitious  habit,  for  it  is  a  Dotorious  fact  that  self- 


44  SOME  CONSCIENCE  SAMPLES. 

condemnation  continues  somewhat  after  reason  has 
assured  the  subject  of  the  error  of  the  doctrine  which 
claimed  his  allegiance. 

A  silly  conscience  is  to  be  extinguished,  like  other 
inconvenient  habits,  by  resolute  action.    1  have 
known  a  compositor  who  seemingly  could  not  place 
a  letter  in  line  without  first  making  an  unnecessary 
motion  with  it  against  the  side  of  his  composing 
stick ;  a  statesman  who  could  not  or  dared  not  go  to 
bed  without  first  placing  his  boots  as  he  wore  them  ; 
a  youth  whose  reason  rejected  the  orthodox  Christian 
doctrines  in  which  he  had  been  reared  but  who  had 
qualms,  which  surprised  him,  about  studying  on  Sun- 
day ;  an  infidel  who  had  killed  a  man  but  had  nothing 
to  fear  from  the  law,  who  nevertheless  had  the  horrors 
in  his  dreams,  and  several  persons  with  freelove  ideas 
but  inconsistent  in  practice  in  a  way  that  showed  the 
rule  of  their  old  conscience.    Some  of  these  things  will 
strike  everyone  as  being  ridiculous.    Of  the  instances 
cited  only  one  did  not  admit  of  correction  by  Emer- 
son's rule  of  doing  the  thing  you  fear  to.    I  firmly 
believe  that  if  the  man  who  had  a  life  on  his  con- 
science had  taken  the  rational  method  of  doing  all 
else  which  he  knew  to  be  sensible,  his  mind  would  have 
been  much  strengthened  to  overcome  his  trouble  of 
blood-guiltiness.    The  Sunday  school  young  man  re- 
alized that  his  conscience  was  awry,  or  the  habit  of  a 
superstitious  belief,  and  in  a  moderate  time  he  over- 
came it.    Others  have  had  similar  experiences  as  to 
books  and  conversation  of  a  "blasphemous"  charac- 
ter and  breaches  of  the  so-called  law  of  morality  in 
the  sexual  relation.    Reasoning  is  well  in  its  place, 
but  action  is  necessary  to  make  a  free  man  or  woman 
when  one  has  been  trained  to  have  a  conscience  in  any 
particular.    I  mean  only  action  which  combines  pleas- 
ure with  safety.    It  is  no  part  of  philosophic  Egoism 
to  pay  more  for  advancement  than  it  is  worth. 


ORIGIN   OF  CONSCIENCE.  45 

XVI.* 

The  ori^n  of  the  guilty  conscieTice  may  be  in  mis- 
haps, such  as  defeat,  capture  and  slavery.    When  men 
from  exercisino;  mastery  and  even  cruelty,  are  sub- 
jected to  the  rule  of  the  stronger  and  more  warlike, 
their  energies  are  turned  inward  in  bitterness  against 
themselves.    Upon  this  gnawing  of  ill  humor  cotiies 
the  suggestion  from  religious  belief,  that  these  uncom- 
fortable feelings  are  sent  by  the  tribal  god  as  a  warn- 
ing.   This  is  readily  believed  by  people  who  already 
believe  that  defeat  and  misfortune  are  punishments 
for  some  lapse  of  duty  to  their  deity.    The  checking 
of  an  active  career  and  humbling  of  the  vanquished 
produce  a  bilious  temper  and  morbid  spirit,  ready  for 
ascetic  rites  on  misdirection,  because  ever  ready  to 
attribute  misfortunes  to  something  other  than  their 
simple  natural  causes. 

The  guilty  conscience  precedes  the  good  con- 
science.   The  latter  is  nothing  but  the  consciousness 
of  the  guilty  conscience  removed — by  expiation, 
atonement  or  however  beliefs  run. 

Before  the  guilty  conscience  there  was  the  sponta- 
neity of  the  free  savage.    After  the  guilty  and  the 
good  conscience  there  is  the  serenity  of  the  self-con- 
scious, sovereign,  intelligent  Ego.    For  convenience  I 
will  hereafter  speak  of  him  simply  as  the  Egoist. 
While  all  men  are  Egoists  in  so  far  as  they  are  not 
visionaries  or  madmen,  nearly  all  men  are  in  fact 
partly  blinded,  ashamed  of  themselves,  not  fully  pos- 
sessed of  themselves.    They  do  things  for  conscience 
sake — Egoistic  method  in  madness ; — they  reject  reli- 
gious doctrine,  but  have  a  "sense  of  sin;"  they  have 
a  horror  of  certain  acts  because  condemned  by  a 
"moral  standard,"  and  so  forth.    They  do  not  even 
understand  that  they  cannot  be  "  sinners  "  except  by 
admitting  a  religious  standard  of  "righteousness;" 
that  they  cannot  be  "immoral,"  wicked,  without 
thinking  as  saints  and  Moralists  think  of  "guilt," 
"  disobedience  "  in  natural  acts.    They  cannot  even 

■ *The  foregoing  chapters  were  published  in  "  Egoism  "  at  San 

Francisco  in  1890  anC  1891. 


46  THE   REAL   EGOIST. 

call  themselves  E|2;oists  to  their  satisfaction  because 
the  religious  world  has  branded  every  natural  im- 
pulse as  vile  and  "  unsanctified  ;"  consequently  Ego- 
ism— self-direction — as  the  sum  of  all  villainy,  and 
they  are  hampered  by  accepting  their  language  from 
the  religious  world. 

The  real  Egoist  is  not  even  he  who  has  merely 
seen  through  the  cheat  of  Moralism,  but  he  who  has 
outgrown  its  habitual  sway,  broken  its  scepter,  dese- 
crated every  shrine  of  superstition  in  his  heart  or  else 
been  more  happily  born  and  reared  than  one  in  ten 
thousand  of  those  who  live  today  or  ever  hved. 

XVII. 

The  Egoist  hears  voices  saying:  "  Forgive  us  our 
sins."    His  thought  takes  a  humorous  turn  and  he 
asks :  Why  do  not  the  idiots  think  of  forgiving  them- 
selves each  one  his  own  sins?    AVhy  cannot  they  be 
like  the  father?    If  "  I  and  my  father  are  one,"  I  can 
do  the  acts  of  the  father  and  forgive  my  own  sin. 
He  who  dare  not  say :  "  I  do  most  cheerfully  forgive 
myself  all  sins  and  misdeeds  I  have  ever  committed 
or  shall  ever  care  to  commit,"  is  certainly  not  an 
Egoist. 

Moralists  propound  the  question:  "Does  the  end 
justify  the  means?"    He  who  argues  on  either  side  of 
it,  shows  not  the  quality  of  Egoism.    It  is  a  question 
for  Moralists,  to  be  answered  by  reference  to  their 
standards  of  duty.    The  Egoist  will  ask  whether  the 
game  is  worth  the  powder  and  in  this  sense  he  could 
use  the  very  words  quoted  in  the  question ;  meaning, 
however,  only  a  particular  application  of  means  to  a 
particular  end — a  question  of  expenditure  or  risk  and 
probability  of  gain.    Every  case  being  decided  on  the 
principle  of  economy  or  of  strategy,  the  general 
moral  question  disay^pears.    The  Moralist  is  left  to 
answer  his  own  question  as  to  whether  or  not  he  will 
venture  to  break  a  "  moral  law  "  in  order  to  accom- 
plish what  he  considers  a  moral  good. 

Another  way  of  putting  our  criticism  is  that  the 
question  can  be  parodied :  "  Does  the  evidence  war- 


*'  END  JUSTIFFES  MEANS  "  SOPHISTRY.  47 

rant  the  verdict?"    But  then,  you  say.  we  must 
know  what  verdict  and  what  evidence  are  referred  to. 
Quite  so ;  and  the  question  :  "  Does  the  end  justify 
the  means?  "  is  equally  void  of  meaning  unless  we 
learn  what  end  is  souo;ht  and  what  means  are  pro- 
posed. 

But  suppose  we  become  more  specific  and  ask : 
"  Is  the  killing  of  a  heretic  justified  by  the  probability 
of  saving  one  thousand  souls  from  perdition  ?  "    To 
this  I  say  it  concerns  the  Moralist,  not  the  Egoist. 
In  order  to  kill,  no  justification  before  the  tribunal  of 
conscience  is  necessary  to,  say,  the  Egoistic  states- 
man ;  for  that  is  a  piece  of  superstition.    In  this  re- 
spect "  all  things  are  lawful "  for  him,  "  but  all  things 
are  not  expedient."    The  heretic  has  to  thank  the 
thousand  other  heretics  for  his  immunity  from  being 
killed  for  heresy.    A  common  interest  unites  them  in 
some  measures  for  self-protection.    Their  danger  is 
but  the  greater  because  fanatics  exist  who  in  addi- 
tion to  the  brutal  instincts  of  mankind  are  possessed 
with  the  idea  of  a  moral  pardoning  power  encourag- 
ing men  to  do  violence  as  a  service,  not  to  themselves 
but  to  a  creed  of  church  or  society.    The  Egoist 
wastes  no  breath  to  persuade  the  fanatic  that  the 
end  would  not  justify  the  means.    He  knows  that  the 
wish  was  father  to  the  thought.    The  doctrine  of  ex- 
ceptional justification  was  the  inevitable  excuse,  like 
the  wolf's  brief  remarks  to  the  lamb  at  the  stream. 
That  wolf  was  not  a  natural  wolf,  but  a  mc)ralizing 
wolf;  still,  altogether  a  wolf  in  fact.    The  moralizing 
man  is  less  frank  and  more  cunning  than  the  wolf. 
He  would  paralyze  his  enemies  by  teaching  that  not 
all  courses  are  "justifiable;  "  then  when  they  spare 
him  and  he  gets  them  in  his  power  he  does  not  spare 
them.    The  end  never  justifies  the  means  when  a  Mor- 
alist is  being  hurt :  always  when  a  Moralist  is  getting 
the  best  of  the  fight  by  unusual  artifice  and  usurpa- 
tion. 


48  INJUSTICE  PRECEDES  JUSTICE  IN  IDEATION. 

XVIII. 

The  idea  of  injustice  precedes  that  of  justice.    Dr. 
Maurice  de  Fleury  in  his  book,  L'Ame  du  Criminel, 
says:  Assuming  the  legend  of  Cain  and  Abel  to  be 
true,  the  brothers  had  a  quarrel  and  when  Cain 
struck  Abel,  the  latter  struck  back.    The  fight  con- 
tinued for  some  time.    Just  when  Abel  was  directing 
a  blow,  his  arm  was  struck  and  fell  helpless  by  his 
side.    The  impulse  to  deliver  the  blow  returned  to  the 
brain  as  consciousness  of  purpose  frustrated  and  this 
was  the  first  sense  of  that  want  of  correspondence 
which  is  called  injustice. 

If  at  such  a  juncture  a  tree  or  rock  should  happen 
to  fall  upon  the  victor  or  a  lion  make  him  his  prey, 
and  the  vanquished  escape,  the  latter  would  thank 
a  supposed  providential  interference,  build  an  altar 
and  found  a  worship. 

Out  of  a  great  number  of  cases  of  hurts — injustice 
— the  sufferers  build  such  theory  of  justice  as  corre- 
sponds with  their  idea  of  the  satisfaction  of  their  de- 
mands. 

"  Just  right "  is  what  fits  a  place  or  case.    Ad- 
justment and  even  justification  are  words  used  in  a 
mechanical  sense.    Justice,  however,  cannot  be  predi- 
cated till  we  come  to  relations  between  persons.    It  is 
evident  that  in  the  notion  or  sentiment  of  justice 
there  are  present  two  elements :  first,  fitness  in  gen- 
eral, as  in  common  with  accuracy;  secondly  a  recog- 
nition of  something  more,  which  may  be  the  sentient 
nature  of  the  object.    We  do  not  speak  of  injustice 
save  where  there  is  a  possibility  of  suffering. 

There  are  a  great  many  applications  of  the  term 
justice,  but  in  all  of  them  it  has  some  relation  to  sen- 
tient beings  and  to  fitness.    The  differences  appar- 
ently  spring  from  different  standards  of  authority, 
rules  of  privilege,  right,  immunity,  etc.    Every  up- 
roar among  men  is  a  proof  of  injustice,  in  the  same 
way  as  the  creaking  or  screeching  of  a  machine  is  an 
evidence  of  parts  ill  adjusted. 


AUTHORITY-WORSHIP  OF  "JUSTICE."  49 

The  loudest  advocates  of  justice  complacently 
overlook  the  fact  that  nobody  extends  justice  to  the 
inferior  animals. 

The  adjustment  of  relations  between  man  and 
man  will  probably  be  best  where  each  one  is  alive  to 
his  own  interests  and  convenience.    In  the  absence  of 
this  condition  justice  is  the  warcry  in  quixotic  cam- 
paigns, the  success  of  which  in  any  instance  serves  to 
destroy  some  privileo:e  and  emancipate  some  ignor- 
ant, helpless  folk  to  become  tools  of  fanatics  and  vic- 
tims of  speculators.    The  free  are  those  who  free 
themselves.    These  and  these  only  can  or  will  do 
themselves  justice  and  they  are  prevented  from  doing 
themselves  and  each  other  justice  most  of  all  by  the 
prevailing  belief  in  justice  as  a  "ruling  principle." 
The  motto :  "  Let  justice  be  done  though  the  heav- 
ens fall,"  is  a  perfect  example  of  fanaticism,  equal  to 
insisting  on  some  one  performance,  though  any 
amount  of  loss  and  suffering  results.    But  the  very 
men  who  harp  on  justice  are  the  ones  who  delegate 
the  trial  and  execution  to  functionaries  chosen  hap- 
hazard, and  make  a  religious  duty  of  submitting  to 
injustice  whenever  these  functionaries  are  ignorant, 
corrupt,  prejudiced  or  mistaken  in  their  judgment. 
The  idea  that  any  person  might  do  himself  justice, 
though  no  doubt  existed  that  the  act  were  justice,  is 
horrifying  to  the  good  socialists,  because  the  execu- 
tioner was  not  appointed  by  society.    Justice,  then, 
is  a  prerogative  of  society,  a  favor  rather  than  a 
right,  in  their  view.    They  become  involved  in  per- 
plexities.   The  heavens  may  fall,  but  not  the  dignity 
of  the  state.    They  deny  justice  to  save  respect  for  its 
mechanism.    An  unjust  law  is  enforced  by  the  same 
authority  which  enforces  a  just  law.    It  is  enforced, 
all  knowing  that  it  is  unjust,  and  because  it  is  unjust, 
to  the  end  that  it  may  be  repealed.    Somebody  is 
made  a  victim  of  injustice  in  order  that  by  forcible 
wrong,  thus  done  by  authority,  another  branch  of 
authority  may  be  induced  to  alter  a  decree  and  issue 
another  decree  (which  will  be  certain  to  accomplish 
another  wrong  to  somebody). 


50  EGOISTIC  JUSTICE. 

Reveng:e  is  not  justice,  but  simply  the  impulse  to 
do  hurt  for  hurt.    It  lacks  measure,  balance.    It  is  at 
most  a  propensity  which  makes  for  the  extermina- 
tion or  humbling:  of  aggressors. 

The  Egoist  does  not  worship  justice.    He  recog- 
nizes the  impossibility  of  its  existing  as  a  donation. 
The  ruler  or  the  society  which  decrees  justice  is  the 
shepherd  who  manages  his  flock,  not  for  the  sake  of 
the  flock,  but  for  his  interest  in  it.    The  Egoist  aims 
at  the  accommodation  of  interests  according  to  the 
capacity  of  the  contracting  parties.    Egoist  with 
Egoist  must  recognize,  and  on  reflection  will  rejoice 
at  the  prospect  of  a  rule  of  not  trespassing  where — he 
had  better  not.    From  this  he  can  arrive  at  a  posi- 
tion of  comfort  in  having  allies  of  great  value  to  him, 
through  their  not  being  afflicted  with  any  supersti- 
tion.   They  multiply  his  power  and  he  adds  to  theirs. 

As  to  justice  in  the  sense  of  meting  out  punish- 
ment to  persons  according  to  their  alleged  moral  de- 
linquencies, the  idea  gives  place  to  that  of  protecting 
ourselves  and  serving  our  convenience.    We  may  sup- 
press a  dangerous  madman  and  a  dangerous  sane 
man  as  a  measure  of  prevention,  not  having  the  old 
Moralistic  horror  of  responsibility  in  the  case  of  our- 
selves dealing  with  the  madman,  and  not  having  the 
Moralistic  furor  against  the  sane  offender.    We  need 
not  therefore  resort  to  casuistry  in  case  of  slight 
doubt  if  we  are  determined  that  it  is  unsafe  to  risk 
yjerniitting  either  to  live.    Thus  Egoists  wdll  not  let 
an  offender  off  on  technicalities  or  scruples  if  they 
deem  it  necessary  to  expel  him  or  kill  him,  and  thus, 
too,  if  one  has  killed  another  the  inquiry  will  be  as  to 
whether  or  not  the  slayer  merely  anticipated  an  in- 
telligent verdict  by  a  jury. 

Let  us  beware  of  the  craze  for  justice.    It  is  the 
mask  of  social  tyranny.    It  demands  a  delegated  au- 
authority  and  a  prerogative  in  this  authority.    Thus 
it  builds  a  citadel  of  injustice;  so  that  the  man  who 
does  himself  justice  is  declared  by  the  law  to  be  guilty 
of  a  crime  against  it,  the  monopoly  of  administra- 
tion of  iustice. 


EQUAL  LIBERTY  VEltttUS  DEMOOKACY,  51 

,  XIX. 

What  of  equal  liberty?    Egoism  is  interior  lib- 
erty, which  of  course  makes  for  equal  liberty  of  Ex- 
ists.   But  this  is  on  the  basis  of  their  common  abil- 
ity, whereas  democracy  and  aristocracy  have  a  com- 
mon principle  in  the  affirmation  of  birthright:  In  de- 
mocracy liberty  is  the  sacred  birthright  of  every 
man.    In  aristocracy  liberty  and  privilege  a.re  the 
right  of  those  born  or  admitted  to  aristocratic  rank. 
The  spirit  of  democracy  is,  to  fashion  each  individual 
on  its  model,  and  endow  him  with  political  equality  in 
contradistinction  to  class  privileges,  but  as  a  mem- 
ber of  the  democracy  into  which  his  passport  is  his 
humanity,  not  his  personal  assertion  and  demonstra- 
tion of  his  power  and  will  to  command  equal  liberty. 
Aristocracy  commands  its  members  to  maintain 
their  rank.    Democracy  commands  its  members  to 
maintain  an  equal  status  for  all.    Egoism  awaits  the 
coming  of  the  free,  who  will  recognize  each  other,  but 
not  by  virtue  of  any  birthright. 

Contrasts  between  men  as  lions  and  lambs,  eagles 
and  doves,  are  fanciful  and  overdrawn.    Nature  has 
not  endowed  them  with  such  extreme  and  transmis- 
sible differences  of  organism.     When  they  shake  off 
old  beliefs  and  indoctrination  and  realize  their  pow- 
ers as  individuals,  equal  liberty  follows  from  the 
practically  equal  assertion  of  similar  physical  powers 
in  self-conscious  Egoism.    When  each  of  us  has  deter- 
mined to  be  as  free  as  he  can,  to  yield  only  to  effective 
force  in  restraint  of  the  liberty  he  wills  to  exercise, 
there  will  be  more  liberty  and  substantially  equal  lib- 
erty for  us  if  we  be  numerous,  even  while  far  from  a 
majority. 

The  idea  of  liberty  for  man  as  Man,  as  something 
to  be  respected  for  its  own  sake,  though  the  man  be  a 
slavish  animal, — the  sacrednessof  Man, — is  a  different 
notion  altogether.    While  I  am,  mdeed,  an  example 
of  man  in  general,  I  base  my  claim  to  consideration 
at  the  hands  of  Egoists  on  the  fact  of  my  being  this 
man  who  can  be  known  to  be  neither  tyrant  whom 


52  LIBERTY  AS  YET  WHOLLY  DENIED. 

they  must  combat  nor  slave  incapable  of  requiting 
their  aid.    I  will  be  a  useful  ally  for  certain  purposes. 
I  will  not  spend  my  strength  in  contending  for  equal 
guardianship,  miscalled  equal  liberty,  but  I  will  seek 
allies  like-minded.    Not  knowing  whether  I  shall  find 
one  yonder  in  a  born  aristocrat  or  there  in  a  toiling 
plebeian,  I  will  put  out  the  sign  of  equal  liberty  to  ex- 
ist among  allies  and  of  a  readiness  to  take  allies  for 
equal  liberty  as  a  working  rule,  not  as  a  religion. 

Republicans  think  they  abolished  the  community 
of  plebeians  when  they  abolished  aristocratic  rank. 
Far  from  it.    They  reduced  the  aristocrats  to  the 
plebeian  level  before  the  law  and  set  up  an  aristocracy 
of  office-holders  and  of  w^ealth,  which  traffics  in  the 
making  and  administration  of  the  laws.    Equal  lib- 
erty remains  entirely  unknown,  because  liberty  is  un- 
known as  an  objective  reality.    There  can  be  no  lib- 
erty of  action  till  it  is  understood  that  each  of  us  finds 
his  law  in  his  will  and  pleasure  and  that  wherein  our 
wills  and  pleasures  agree  we  make  our  law,  which  we 
enforce  on  others  who  come  into  our  domain,  because 
we  must  or  it  is  our  convenience  so  to  do.    Thus  only, 
liberty  and  law  are  synonymous.    Be  not  unequally 
yoked  together  with  non-Egoists.    They  cannot 
maintain  your  liberty.    Your  right  and  liberty,  apart 
from  what  you  can  do  for  yourself,  is  that  part  of 
your  will  and  pleasure  which  receives  the  support  of 
allies  lending  you  the  aid  of  their  power,  as  their  right 
and  liberty  has  the  same  extension  by  recognition 
and  aid  from  you  and  others.    The  Egoist  does  not 
commit  the  mistake  of  battling  for  emancipation  and 
endowuient  with  power,  misnamed  eqnal  liberty,  of  a 
herd  of  human  cattle.    More  precious  to  me  than  ten 
thousand  of  these  is  one  person  capable  of  asserting 
all  attainable  hberty.    Still,  I  came  from  the  herd  and 
by  this  and  like  signs  I  know  that  the  herd  contains 
my  precious  allies  in  the  making.    I  send,  among 
those  who  can  hear,  the  word  of  awakening.    Come  to 
me  and  1  will  recognize  in  you  equal  liberty;  I  will 
give  myself,  if  you  will,  a  duty  toward  you,  to  be  per- 
formed on  pain  of  losing  your  esteem  and  support.    I 


WE  ARE  THE  OVERMEN.  53 

have  already  the  pleasure  of  seeking  and  the  hope  of 
finding  j'ou.    Life  is  worth  less  without  you  than  it 
will  be  with  you.    Your  precious  force  is  my  strength 
from  the  moment  that  you  understand  that  I  have 
no  greater  hope  than  in  your  fullest  assertion  of  your 
liberty.    We  will  not  allow  the  world  to  wait  for  the 
overman.    We  are  the  overmen. 

Aristocracy  has  not  that  fascination  for  me  that 
it  has  for  F.  Nietsche.    Whatever  pleasure  a  man  may 
feel  in  wielding  power  in  association  with  bold  and 
strong  companions,  a  reflecting  man  must  despise  an 
hereditary  system  which  is  subject  to  the  following 
defects:  that  in  order  to  transmit  power  to  one  of  his 
sons  he  must  consent  to  place  his  other  sons  in  an  in- 
ferior position ;  that  he  must  aid  in  maintaining  a 
special  prerogative  for  the  degenerate  sons  of  his 
original  colleagues;  that  he  must  give  his  daughters 
to  such  inferior  scions  to  be  their  marital  slaves ; 
that  to  support  the  system  he  must  aid  in  employing 
those  vermin,  the  priests;  that  to  keep  down  the 
plebeians  he  must  slay  many  a  brave  and  intelligent 
fellow  of  plebeian  birth. 

XX. 

One  can  feign  a  selfish  motive  to  obtain  opportunity 
to  do  an  act  of  personal  kindness ;  that  is,  one  feigns 
one  self-interested  purpose  in  order  to  accomplish  an- 
other self-interested  purpose — to  overcome  the  pride 
of  independence  in  another  person.    A  number  of  the 
most  delightful  stories  have  this  point.    The  gener- 
osity which  thus  disguises  itself  differs  fundamentally 
from  abstract  philanthrophy  or  theoretical  Altruism. 
The  reader  perceives  in  every  such  story  how  thor- 
oughly the  generous  heart  enjoys  its  success  in  aiding 
particular  persons  of  merit  who  have  attracted  its 
good  will.    But  one  never  feigns  a  selfish  interest  in 
order  to  do  a  disinterested  act.    On  the  other  hand, 
how  well  mankind  know  that  hypocrites  profess  dis- 
interestedness while  their  aims  are  selfish. 

In  the  generous  act  there  is  spontaneous,  personal 
motive ;  no  dread  duty ;  no  bending  before  a  master 


54  SOME  CRITICISMS  ON  EGOISM. 

power.    Do  you  say  the  master  power  is  there? 
Well,  it  comes  through  the  doer's  individual  organ- 
ism as  a  genial  impulse,  interesting  him.  and  so  is 
Egoistic.    Do  you  complain  that  thus  we  make  of 
Egoism  what  you  call  selfishness  and  what  you  call 
unselfishness?     We  show  you  that  there  is  a  common 
element  of  genuine  personality,  even  of  pleasurable 
action,  in  both.    Opposite  are  the  acts  in  which  the 
person  yields  his  will,  subjugated  by  an  ideal,  the 
powers  of  which  are  awe,  dread  and  lashing  duty.    I 
do  not  care  to  quarrel  about  a  word  with  those 
whose  idea  is  beckoning-duty.    If  it  comes  through 
my  sense  of  what  is  worthy  of  me,  due  to  fulfill  my 
honor  and  dignity,  that  too  is  distilled  in  my  con- 
sciousness or  subconsciousness  and  is  of  my  aliment 
and  flowering  and  of  the  fruitage  of  my  sentiment, 
intellect  and  will — is  Egoistic. 

XXI. 

Since  the  publication  of  these  chapters  began,  I 
have  seen  in  libertarian  papers  several  flippant  re- 
marks and  attempted  refutations.    We  hear  that 
Egoism  is  a  very  old  thing,  which  is  true;  but  that  is 
one  cause  why  the  sour  critics  have  missed  under- 
standing it,  for  they  have  gone  to  old  books  in  which 
they  found  the  idea  of  Egoism  as  viewed  in  the  fight 
of  the  science,  philosophy  and  politics  of  past  ages ; 
or  they  have  gathered  opinions  from  superficial  writ- 
ings.   Many  show  absolutely  no  understanding  of 
Egoism.    It  is  an  affair  of  objective  classification  of 
acts,  they  suppose.    Thus  if  1  have  an  apple  and  eat 
it,  that  is  Egoism,  they  suppose.    If  I  give  the  apple 
to  my  friend,  that  is  Altruism,  they  suppose.    How- 
simple  !    Then  I,  being  an  Egoist  and  liking  to  see 
some  of  my  friends  eat  my  apples,  must  not  indulge 
in  this  pleasure  unless  I  can  stand  certain  persons' 
charges  of  inconsistency.    Let  me  give  them  a  point : 
I  select  my  friends.    My  apples  are  not  for  everybody 
to  help  himself.    Let  me  give  them  another  point. 
The  man  who  eats  his  own  apple,  not  because  he  likes 
it,  but  because  he  thinks  it  is  Egoistic  to  eat  it, — not 


CHRISTIAN  martyrs'  1»KLUDED  EGOISM.  55 

to  talk  of  duty, — is  only  a  deluded  Egoist,  by  which  1 
mean  that  he  has  missed  being  an  Egoist  in  the  defi- 
nite sense  in  which  I  am  using  the  word  in  these  clos- 
ing chapters. 

One  correspondent  demolishes  Egoism  thus:  that 
Egoism  is  Hedonism  or  Eudemonism,  the  pursuit  of 
pleasure ;  that  it  is  absurd  to  say  that  the  pleasure 
of  professing  Christianity  outweighed  the  pain  of  be- 
ing burned  at  the  stake ;  that  hence  it  is  not  true 
that  the  pursuit  of  pleasure  is  the  greatest  motive. 

"The  pursuit  of  pleasure,"  is  an  expression  which 
has  conveyed  to  many  persons  the  idea  that  Egoism 
consists  for  all  men  in  satiating  certain  appetites; 
but  the  truth  is  that  philosophically  "pleasure" 
stands  for  sovereignty — is  used  in  contradistinction 
to  servitude. 

Egoists  do  not  accept  the  state  of  mind  of  a  Chris- 
tian martyr  as  being  normal.    He  believed  that  a 
crown  of  glory  awaited  those  faithful  to  death ;  that 
exclusion  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord  awaited  the 
"apostate."    Qualified  by  these  beliefs  undoubtingly 
held,  how  can  we  deny  the  martyr's  (deluded)  Ego- 
ism ?    The  apostolic  "  fishers  for  men  "  baited  their 
hooks  with  promises  and  threats  addressed  to  self- 
interest  and  repeated :  "  Fear  not  them  that  kill  the 
body,"  etc.    Are  only  those  who  secure  good  bar- 
gains to  be  credited  with  the  intention  to  secure 
them? 

The  critic  makes  a  ludicrously  false  comparison 
when  he  sets  the  physical  pain  of  burning  against  the 
mental  pain  of  apostacy.    At  the  moment  when  the 
Christian  martyr  made  choice  of  constancy  to  his 
religion  and  a  crown  of  glorj^,  he  had  not  felt  the 
physical  agony  of  having  his  flesh  consumed  by  fire. 
As  much  as  possible  he  fixed  his  thought  on  the 
promised  heaven  and  thus  lessened  the  anticipation 
of  pain.    Whatever  pain  there  was  in  the  expectation 
of  burning  it  was  not  the  pain  of  actual  burning. 
We  do  not  know  what  the  final  suffering  was  nor 
what  the  final  thoughts  were.    We  read  of  one  on  the 
cross,  when  too  late,  exclaiming:  "My  God,  my  God|! 


56  SYMPATHY  NO  REMEDY. 

Why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?  "  and  we  read  that  the 
servant  shall  not  be  above  his  lord.    Moreover  if  the 
Christian  martyr  could  be  supposed  to  fully  appreci- 
ate the  pain  of  the  death  that  awaited  him,  he  must 
also  be  supposed  to  appreciate  as  fully  the  hell  which 
awaited  the  apostate  and  endless  death  in  the  lake  of 
fire.    How  then  must  such  a  terrified  believer  decide 
on  the  Egoistic  principle  as  distorted  by  his  faith? 
To  us  there  is  no  more  difficulty  in  his  case  than 
there  is  in  the  principle  of  gravitation  illustrated  by 
a  ball  rolling  down  an  inclined  plane  when  that  is  the 
nearest  approach  it  can  make  to  perpendicular  de- 
scent. 

But  while  we  may  suppose  a  martyr  possibly  log- 
ical in  his  course,  given  his  absurd  belief,  we  feel  war- 
ranted in  thinking  that  the  majority  of  those  who 
sought  martyrdom  were  excited  beyond  the  control 
of  reason,  as  is  the  case  with  men  acting  under  the 
dominion  of  passion  in  the  commission  of  certain  of- 
fences.   Craziness  is  essentially  an  inability  to  weigh 
conditions  and  apprehend  consequences. 

Another  thinks  that  Egoism  kills  sympathy  and 
thus,  he  thinks,  hinders  the  care  of  children. 

The  prevailing  opinion  that  general  betterment 
depends  upon  increased  sj^mpathy  is  one  which  I  am 
more  and  more  decided  to  pronounce  a  stupendous 
error.    Sympathy  diverts  energy  from  one  channel  to 
turn  it  into  another.    An  illustration  showing  the 
ruin  caused  by  an  irrational  excess  of  grief  may  cause 
some  to  re-examine  their  opinion.    B  was  married 
three  years  ago.    Lately  his  wife  died,  leaving  a  child 
a  year  old.    B  was  so  much  affected  by  the  death  of 
his  wife  that  he  went  to  the  cemetery  day  after  day 
and  lay  down  on  the  ground  crying.    There  he  con- 
tracted an  infectious  disease  and  he  also  died,  thus 
leaving  the  child  an  orphan. 

Another  is  shocked  at  Egoism,  as  it  has  no  rever- 
ence for  anything  sacred,  not  even  for  Feuerbach's 
jugglery  that  "  love  is  divine  "  and  "  man  is  godlike  " 
or  can  be  by  thinking  himself  so.    Also  that  Egoism 


"good"  is  only  appreciation.  57 

puts  no  premium  on  "  courage"  but  rather  on  cow- 
ardice. 

It  is  well  to  be  shocked  in  default  of  any  other 
way  of  gettintr  intelligence  awakened.    Be  sure  that 
Egoism  has  nothing  sacred,  and  therefore  accepts  no 
imposture  or  hallucination  and  remember  that  it  re- 
quires courage  to  be  a  coward  and  appear  a  coward. 
Where  '*  courage"  is  folly,  it  is  Egoistic  to  be  a  ''cow- 
ard."   Certainly  it  is  only  Egoism  that  can  ridicule 
sacred  things  of  man  as  well  as  of  God :  I  mean  ridi- 
cule in  action  as  well  as  in  word.    Peckniff,  even  if  an 
Atheist  in  woman's  clothes,  should  be  snubbed,  and 
the  Egoist  will  snub  him,  without  regard  to  his  or 
her  sex. 

xxn. 

What  is  good ?    What  is  evil?    These  words  ex- 
press only  appreciations.    A  good  fighter  is  a  "good 
man,"  or  a  "  bad  man!"  both  words  expressing  the 
same  idea  of  ability,  but  from  different  points  of  view. 
To  the  beggar  a  generous  giver  is  a  good  man.    To 
the  master  a  servant  is  good  when  he  cheerfully 
slaves  for  the  master.    A  good  subject  is  one  obedient 
to  his  prince.    A  good  citizen  is  one  who  gives  no 
trouble  to  the  state,  but  contributes  to  its  revenues 
and  stability.    Evil  is  only  what  we  do  not  find  to 
our  good,  but  what  we  have  to  combat.    A  horse  is 
not  good  because  strong  and  swift  if  he  be  "vicious;" 
that  is,  if  we  find  him  hard  to  tame.    A  breed  of  dogs 
is  good  if  readily  susceptible  of  training  to  hunt  all 
day  or  watch  all  night  for  the  benefit  of  the  owner. 
A  wife  is  "good  "  if  she  will  not  be  good  to  any  man 
but  her  husband. 

Why  do  tJie  lion  and  the  eagle  enjoy  such  a  repu- 
tation?   The  eagle  attacks  nobody  except  babes. 
The  lion  is  a  large  animal,  deliberate  in  his  move- 
ments and  reputed  to  give  a  man  a  chance  to  get 
away.    There  are  "worse"  animals. 

In  all  varieties  of  Moral  ism  obedience  is  the  car- 
dinal virtue,  which  is  wholly  on  the  principle  of  pro- 
curing "good"  subjects  for  those  who  have  the  ef- 
frontery to  set  up  as  rulers  over  fools  and  simple- 


58         TRL  TH — AGREEMENT  OF  THOUGHT  WITH  THING. 

tons.    "  Be  good  and  you  will  be  happy."    ''Virtue  is 
its  own  reward."    These  proverbs  are  an  appeal  to 
self-interest  beguiled  to  accept  some  current  teaching 
as  to  what  is  "good"  conduct,  "virtue."    What  if 
one  be  happy  and  healthy  and  the  same  believers  in 
these  maxims  tell  him  that  his  happiness  is  not 
good  ?    They  show  that  their  idea  of  goodness  is 
obedience  to  certain  commands  or  rules.    But  the 
Egoist  will  prove  most  things  and  hold  fast  to  that 
which  he  iinds  to  be  good  for  him.    That  which  he 
finds  to  L.i  "its  own  reward "  he  holds  to  be — virtue 
enough.    The  positions  are  opposites.    The  Moralist 
says :  "  This  course  is  virtue ;  believe  it  and  follow  in- 
structions, and  you  will  find  happiness  in  the  thought 
of  doing  right."    The  Egoist  perceives  that  such  in- 
struction is  a  trap  for  credulity.    The  experience  of 
mankind  is  all  very  well,  but  most  of  the  time  your 
Moralist  deprecates  experiment.    It  is  remarkable 
that  in  "  the  most  important  relation  in  life  "  two 
persons  must  make  a  legal  contract  for  permanent 
union  before  they  have  any  knowledge  of  each  other 
in  the  relation ;  then  bear  it  if  they  dislike  it,  and  this 
is  regarded  as  virtue.    I  do  not  say  that  all  Moral- 
ists teach  such  doctrine,  but  all  Moralists  have  some 
doctrine  which  they  enforce  by  sentiment  demanding 
individual  sacrifice,  absolutely  and  not  merely  as  in- 
dividually expedient. 

XXIII. 

Truth,  the  agreement  between  thinking  and 
thing, — between  thought  and  tha,t, —  is  as  desirable 
as  seeing  and  hearing  without  illusion  or  confusion. 
Truth,  the  agreement  between  thinking  and  express- 
ion, is  made  a  duty  by  Moralists,  yet  generally  with 
reservations.    May  a  man  lie  to  assassins  to  save  his 
life,  or  to  robbers  to  save  treasure  committed  to  his 
care,  or  to  a  sick  person  to  conceal  news  which  would 
be  a  serious  shock  ?    The  gravity  with  which  such 
questions  are  argued  points  to  something  further, — 
that  Truth,  like  Bight  and  Justice,  is  erected  into  a 
deity  and  men  go  crazy  or  pretend  to  go  crazy  over 


HONESTY — TJiUTH   IN    ACTION.  59 

the  worship  thereof.    This  is  the  hypocrite's  oppor- 
tunity.   So  people  bind  themselves  with  an  oath  and 
lend  a  spurious  importance  to  words  spoken  by  men 
who  care  only  for  immunity,  but  who  are  shrewd 
enough  not  to  profess  what  they  think  and  how  inde- 
pendent they  feel. 

How  curious  that  men  generally  feel  it  "right " 
to  cut  and  hack  natural  forms,  but  not  to  take  any 
liberty  with  "truth"  even  in  the  verbal  representa- 
tion of  such  forms ! 

But  on  the  other  hand  they  say :  "  All's  fair  in 
love  and  war."    Now  everything  that  is  not  love  can 
be  viewed  as  war  (and  the  "love"  here  spoken  of  is 
war  too).    This  maxim  is  more  often  used  to  excuse 
lying  than  for  any  other  purpose.    Lying  is  a  very 
common  practice  and  I  perceive  no  reason  to  expect 
it>s  abatement  unless  individuals  in  hirge  numbers  (1) 
cease  to  pretend  to  exact  from  others  action  which  is 
inconvenient,  when  they  cannot  or  do  not  really  ex- 
act it;  (2)  make  it  to  the  interest  of  others  to  tell 
them  the  truth  or  leave  others  alone  as  to  telling 
anything  about  matters  on  which  they  now  tell  lies. 
So  there  might  be  less  "war." 

To  the  Egoist  truth  is  an  economy,  where  practi- 
cable.   The  chief  condition  is  mutual  intelligence. 

Honesty, — truth  in  action, — is  commonly  said  to 
be  "the  best  policy,"  and  perhaps  as  commonly  dis- 
believed to  be  unconditionally  so.    Where  honesty  is 
reciprocal,  it  brings  that  mutual  advantage  which 
attaches  to  truthfulness,  but  honest  conduct  in  an 
individual  in  dealing  with  dishonest  persons,  is  too 
simple.    Honesty  is  a  pleasure,  often  a  luxury. 

XXIV. 

Moralism  reaches  its  acme  in  the  craze  for  a  sup- 
posed perfection  the  opposite  way  from  individuality. 
Even  when  philosophy  has  pronounced  that  its  aim 
is  to  lead  man  to  find  himself,  the  spirit  of  perversion 
is  such  that  it  takes  Man,  the  general  idea  of  the 
species,  as  an  ideal  for  the  individual  and  teaches  in- 
dividuals to  torture  their  personal  mind  in  order  to 


60  OUR  PLEASURE  IS  OUR   "PERFECTION." 

conform  to  the  idea  formed  about  the  species.    Thus 
it  is  said  our  "  mission  "  is  to  be  true  men,  more  per- 
fect men,  more  perfect  women.    This  notion  prompts 
to  imitation  of  what  has  been  exemphfied  in  others, 
not  to  development  of  that  which  is  most  genuinely 
myself  or  yourself.    If  I  am  to  be  a  conforming  man, 
striving  to  be  something  set  before  me,  I  cannot  be  I. 
As  Stirner  remarks,  "every  man  who  is  not  deformed 
is  a  true  or  perfect  man,  but  each  one  is  more  than 
this.    He  is  this  unique  man."    What  he  is  that  an- 
other is  not,  we  cannot  say  in  advance  of  knowing 
him.    Egoism  is  this:  that  this  man  acts  out  himself. 
Every  woman  may  be  assumed  to  be  a  true  or  perfect 
woman,  and  she  is  cheated  if  taught  to  assume  other- 
wise.   That  is  not  the  aim ;  that  is  the  starting  point 
with  us  Egoists,    Be  easy  about  perfection  of  Man. 
The  individual  needs  first  to  be  free  from  any  yoke  or 
assigned  task,  in  order  to  normally  possess,  enjoy, 
develop  and  exhibit  himself  or  herself.    I  shall  de- 
velop the  species,  if  1  have  nothing  more  distinctive 
to  develop.    A  woman  will  be  merely  a  "true  and 
perfect  woman  "  if  she  has  nothing  of  her  own,  only 
of  the  species.    The  very  moment,  however,  that  she 
knows  herself  to  be  already  a  "true  and  perfect 
woman,"  as  the  zero  or  horizon  of  individuality,  that 
moment  is  the  individual  energy  set  free  to  work  out 
whatever  it  takes  pleasure  in,— or  as  free  as  conscious 
reflection  can  make  us  while  old  habits  and  affections 
persist  in  some  degree.    To  come  to  ourselves,  to  find 
ourselves,  is  to  know  that  what  we  have  of  the  spe- 
cies is  ours,  so  far  as  it  suits  us  to  keep  it  and  that 
we  have  neither  obligation  nor  mission  but  what 
each  one  may  give  himself. 

XXV. 

A  woman  is — possibly  an  Egoist.    Apart  from 
this  possibility  she  is — simply  a  female.    If  an  Egoist, 
she  will  determine  her  actions  with  precisely  that  in- 
terior freedom  possessed  by  the  male  Egoist. 

Marriage,  whether  as  pol^'^gamy  or  monogamy,  is 
an  agreement  among  men  in  a  given  state  to  respect 


MOnPTVES   FOR  MARRYING.  61 

each  other's  property  in  one  or  more  women,  accord- 
ing to  the  law  of  the  tribe  or  state.    It  depends  upon 
deluded  Egoism.    The  supposed  happiness  of  exclu- 
sive possession  as  a  right  to  be  enforced  is  resolvable 
into  several  factors  such  as  (1)  The  certain  immedi- 
ate desire  for  possession ;  (2)  The  notion  that  the 
person  possessed  is  passive  and  a  constant  quantity ; 
(3)  The  seeming  accumulation  of  happiness  by  mo- 
nopolizing that  which  others  would  use  if  permitted, 
the  defeating  of  their  desire  being  supposed  to  be  the 
securing  of  one's  own.    Some  men,  however,  marry 
because  they  see  that  the  desired  woman  will  be  mar- 
ried by  another  and  hence  lost  to  them  unless  they 
take  her  on  the  customary  contract. 

Men  flatter  themselves  that  they  can  perpetuate 
themselves  and  not  merely  the  race;  a  simple  error, 
for  if  we  allow  half  the  effect  to  each  parent,  the  re- 
sult is  that  A's  offspring  is  half  A ;  his  grandchild  is 
one-fourth  A ;  his  great-grandchild  is  one-eighth  A ; 
the  next  generation  one-sixteenth  A,  and  thus  his  de- 
scendants will  have  nothing  more  in  common  with 
him  than  any  of  the  individuals  of  his  race. 

Some  learned  men  argue  that  while  men  are  nat- 
urally polygamous,  women  are  naturally  monog- 
amous ;  but  their  discourse  soon  turns  into  censure  of 
any  woman  who  does  not  come  up  to  the  mark,  as 
being  a  perverted  creature.    Are  they  blind  to  the 
vast  amount  of  fear,  reserve  and  duplicity  in  women? 
Can  the  subjugation  of  woman  through  all  past  time 
have  failed  to  make  her  seem  and  act  as  though  her 
nature  were  different  from  man's?    Is  not  the  watch 
kept  upon  her  a  proof  that  the  preachei*s  have  no 
deep  faith  in  her  nature  being  different  from  their 
own?    But  what  would  be  the  fate  of  an  author  who 
should  terrify  society  by  assimilating  the  nature  of 
the  two  sexes,  while  affirming  man's  polygamous  in- 
stinct ?    He  would  be  accused  of  a  tendency  to  cor- 
rupt virtuous  womanhood. 

All  agree  that  jealousy  is  a  cruel  and  tormenting 
passion.    Is  it  not,  then,  self-evidently  a  sign  of  per- 
verted Egoism?    The  temper  which  is  not  jealous, 


62  THE  MOTHER  OWNS  THE  INFANT. 

which  can  love  and  let  love,  and  enjoy  the  love  that 
is  spontaneously  g^ven  because  attracted,  is  un- 
doubtedly happier  than  the  jealous  disposition. 
Such  a  temper  will  be  willing  to  let  the  nature  of 
woman  display  itseK  in  freedom,  and  not  until  more 
of  such  a  temper  is  shown  is  it  to  be  e-ipected  that 
men  will  be  privileged  to  know  from  women  what 
women  really  are. 

The  wife  enjoys  a  status.    To  forfeit  it  is  to  for- 
feit reputation.    The  husband  is  judged  differently. 
It  looks  as  if  the  modern  woman,  for  the  present, 
were  mostly  contenting  herself  with  keeping  her  repu- 
tation and  using  the  status  in  which  man  has  placed 
her,  for  what  there  is  in  it.    Liberty  is  not  hers,  but 
some  power  she  can  wield.    Such  power  cannot  fail  to 
be  a  curtailing  of  the  husband's  resources,  liberty  or 
convenience,  honesty,  growth;  and  if  he  is  fool 
enough  to  presume  too  far  on  his  prerogative,  he  is 
sure  in  many  instances  to  be  deceived,  for  woman's 
wit  has  been  forced  in  the  direction  of  deception  as 
much  as  to  submission.    The  latter  implies  the 
former. 

With  the  discovery  by  men  that  the  perpetuation 
of  their  individuality  is  an  illusion,  that  the  expecta- 
tion of  happiness  by  the  exercise  of  authority  over 
woman  is  a  grozs  mistake,  that  the  person  possessed 
is  not  a  constant  quantity  but  a  variable  one,  a 
good  to  be  elicited  by  wise  treatment  and  not  by  rule 
of  thumb.  Egoism  comes  into  the  relation  of  the 
sexes,  without  delusion.    The  woman  will  have  her 
way  in  the  matter  of  procreation  and  will  have  the 
control  of  her  children  till  they  are  wise  enough  to 
assert  the  control  of  themselves*.    What  have  we 

*^i\\  the  Union  of  Egoists  legislate  on  the  "  debt "  of  grown 

children  to  their  mother?    Our  Union  will  be  based  simply  on  our 
common  interests.    The  interest  must  be  clear  to  each  Unit  in  or- 
der to  command  su])port  for  any  rule.    Only  a  minority  can  have 
a  pecuniary  interest  in  the  above  suggested  claim.    We  may  first 
eliminate  all  the  men,  as  the  children  belong  only  to  the  mothers. 
We  can  also  leave  out  all  the  women  who  have  no  children  that 
are  under  our  jurisdiction  or  likely  to  come  under  it,  and  those 
mothers  who  ai*e  content  with  the  unrestricted  control  of  their  in- 


LOVE  AND  EGOISM  NOT  PARADOXICAL.  63 

onlookers  to  do  with  the  relations  of  mother  and  in- 
fant?   Nothing. 

Those  who  are  in  the  married  state  sometimes 
pretend  that  if  they  were  single  they  would  remain 
single.    They  are  not  to  be  believed  because  they  say 
so.    Marriage  to  very  many  is  a  sacred  thing  in  some 
aspect  or  the  demon  of  deluded  selfishness  is  stronger 
than  they  confess.    What  if  we  say  to  them :  Please 
for  a  moment  regard  your  marriage  as  the  marriage 
of  a  pair  of  doves  or  canaries.     When  so  regarded 
what  is  there  to  talk  about  in  the  question  whether 
you  are  married  or  not,  apart  from  bare  legal  pow- 
ers ?t. 

Related  to  this  is  the  idea  that  crimes  of  jealousy, 
even  outside  of  marital  relations,  can  be  traced  to 
the  idea  of  marital  rights.    The  man  and  woman  who 
have  cohabited  have  talked  or  thought  of  marriage 
and  come  to  regard  their  connection  as  a  marriage 
without  the  ceremony.    Marriage  and  the  possibility 
of  marriage  are  in  this  way  responsible  for  those 
crimes  which  simulate  marital  vengeance. 

Some  people  contrast  love  with  selfishness.    They 
surely  cannot  mean  sexual  love.     Te  quiero  is  trans- 
lated either  "  I  love  thee  "  or  "  I  want  thee."    By 
common  understanding  love  that  is  not  selfish 
enough  to  break  some  law  in  order  to  satisfy  a  per- 

fant  children  to  train  and  impress  them  as  they  will ;  content  to 
blame  themselves  if  a  child  proves  ungrateful  after  ten  or  fifteen 
years  of  such  opportunity  to  form  its  disposition.    To  my  think- 
ing the  policy  of  awarding  compensation  in  after  years,  would  im- 
ply the  policy  of  interfering  with  the  mother's  absolute  contro' 
over  the  child  during  infancy,  for  in  this  control  lies  the  making  or 
Bpoiling  of  the  child's  character.    I  prefer  to  trust  her  entirely  and 
leave  her  to  face  the  results  of  her  training  of  her  child. 

tYou  say  certain  birds  are  monogamous  and  that  this  argues 

that  man  may  be  so.  Accept  the  assurance  that  Egoists  will  be 
content  to  see  the  question  resolved  by  the  free  play  of  instinct  in 
the  species,  as  you  suggest.  But  the  action  of  mankind,  by  legis- 
lation and  social  censure  on  the  matter,  looks  very  like  a  confess- 
ion that  they  regard  themselves  as  naturally  constituted  with  an 
inclination  to  variety  in  love  and  nt^eding  a  deal  of  dragooning  to 
make  them  good  monogamists  or  passable  counterfeits  thereof. 


64  PHYSICAL  REQUIREMENTS  EGOISTIC. 

Bonal  want,  is  not  strong  enough  to  hold  a  spirited 
mate. 

Others  find  in  sex  an  argument  against  Egoism. 
Thej  say  you  cannot  be  an  independent  individual, 
because  you  are  incomplete  without  one  of  the  oppo- 
site sex.    We  may  reply  that  a  man  is  very  much 
sooner  done  for  if  deprived  of  food  or  water  than  if 
unable  to  meet  with  an  agreeable  woman ;  conse- 
quently if  there  were  anything  in  the  above  argu- 
ment it  would  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  the  having 
any  physical  requirements  militates  against  Egoism. 
But,  on  the  contrary,  we  find  they  all  afford  scope  for 
Egoism.    We  are  likely  to  find  in  our  surroundings 
the  objects  essential  to  our  existence,  and  this  comes 
out  with  regard  to  companionship  Just  as  with  re- 
gard to  materials  for  food,  clothing  and  shelter. 
Egoism  lies  entirely  in  our  attitude  toward  objects, 
not  in  our  being  constituted  to  have  no  need  of  them. 
We  cannot  fly,  and  we  are  subject  to  hunger  and 
other  appetites.    Our  needs  serve  to  awaken  our 
powers  to  activity  and  give  various  occasions  for 
converting  threatened  suffering  into  enjoyment,  if  we 
meet  everything  in  a  thoroughly  intrepid,  Egoistic 
spirit.    Even  our  need  of  social  conversation  is  no 
derogation  from  Egoism.    The  man  who  uses  and 
appropriates  to  himself  the  benefit  of  intercourse  with 
others — of  his  choosing — is  an  intelligent  Egoist, 
whereas  the  shrinking,  solitary  man  is  weaker:  he 
attaches  too  much  importance  to  something  and  he 
permits  it  to  drive  him  from  the  field  of  activity  and 
enjoyment. 

Theoretically  and  practically  the  position  of  a 
married  woman  is  in  all  essential  respects  the  oppo- 
site of  that  which  an  Egoist  would  choose.    Still, 
there  is  no  position  in  which  one  may  accidentally 
find  oneself  (short  of  actual  imprisonment)  that  can 
make  any  difference  to  the  individual  comparable  in 
effect  to  the  difference  between  Egoism  (mental  lib- 
erty) and  non-Egoism  (mental  slavery). 

If  a  woman  had  sold  herself  into  chattel  slavery 
which  the  law  forbids,  she  would  feel  no  hesitation  in 


MORALISTIC  ATHEISM.  65 

repudiating  the  bargain.    What  is  the  difference  in 
marriage?    The  difference  lies  in  the  social  sanction. 
The  victims  await  emancipation  by  social  opinion. 
This  is  not  Egoism,  but  its  opposite. 

XXVI. 

Reared  in  Evangelical  Christianity  I  passed,  be- 
tween the  ages  of  15  and  18,  through  the  stages  of 
Biblical  criticism  and  disbelief  in  Providence,  on  the 
ground  of  the  supremacy  of  natural  law,  to  Atheism. 

As  my  religion  had  been  an  undoubting  failh  in 
and  obedience  to  an  ideal  Ego — God — when  I  un- 
bound myself  from  the  web  of  theology,  I  fell  heir  to 
the  sovereign  attributes, — the  liberty  and  the  benevo- 
lence,— of  the  God  who  then  became  a  myth.    1  did 
not  cheat  myself  a  day  with  Moral  commandments 
without  a  Moral  Lawgiver.    Yet  1  felt  and  foresaw 
that  what  was  gained  by  the  intellect  would  not  be 
easily  translated  into  feeling  and  action  for  many 
years  to  come,  such  was  the  Moral  susceptibility  and 
force  of  habits,  from  early  indoctrination.    I  said  to 
myself  as  a  youth :  "  I  feel  that  not  until  I  am  40 
years  of  age  shall  I  be  able  to  act  in  all  things  as  my 
judgment  decides  for  my  own  interest."    It  was  even 
so. 

Thus  in  the  first  half  of  the  sixties  I  was  an  Athe- 
ist and  self-conscious  Egoist.    I  associated  wath  Athe- 
ists and  took  part  in  their  propaganda  before  I  was 
20  and  for  years  after.    But  1  found  a  false  note 
among  the  Atheists,  that  theirs  was  the  religion  of 
Humanity  with  a  Morality  not  less  impressive  upon 
the  conscience  than  that  connected  with  theology, 
purer  because  freed  from  superstition.    They  chal- 
lenged comparison  as  to  the  Morality  of  their  leaders 
and  members  with  Christians, — the  Christian  stand- 
ard being  usually  implied  as  to  what  constituted 
Morality.    There  were  among  them  men  impressed 
with  the  philosophy  of  Epicurus,  of  Hobbes,  of 
D'Holbach  and  Spinoza, — self-love  as  the  foundation 
and  sum  of  morals,  but  the  drift  of  their  discourses 
was  that  good  morals  would  grow  out  of  self-love, — 


66  REPUDIATION   OF   "CONSCIENCE." 

and  still  the  morals  were  Christian  morals.    When  an 
Atheist  ceased  to  take  an  interest  in  the  iconoclastic 
propaganda,  he  usually  settled  down  into  a  selfish  in- 
dividual, a  nonentity  of  ordinary  morals.    His  Ego- 
ism was  after  the  current  ideas  of  rudimentary  Ego- 
ism which  orthodox  Moralists  propagate  and  his 
former  associates  simply  regretted  that  he  was  no 
longer  militant  or  contributory  to  the  Atheistic 
church. 

From  the  first  of  my  mental  independence,  or 
Atheism,  I  repudiated  conscience  and  a  Moral  stand- 
ard ;  and  I  was  equally  dissatisfied  with  the  at- 
tempted limitation  of  self-love,  to  grubbing  for  ad- 
vantages over  other  people;  certain  that  it  was 
purely  my  pleasure  or  prudence  which  impelled  me  to 
any  act,  I  declared  in  print,  prior  to  1870,  that  when 
an  Atheist  acts  honestly  toward  another  person  it  is 
because  it  is  his  pleasure  to  do  so.    This  aroused  a 
critic  who  affirmed  the  "sense  of  justice"  governing 
Atheists.    A  pretty  term,  but  when  we  have  arrived 
at  a  "sense  of  justice"  why  do  we  inconvenience  our- 
selves for  it?    I  affirm  a  pleasure,  a  sentiment  of 
good  will  and  of  art.    There  is  no  "  must "  about  it 
with  the  Egoist.    But  with  my  Atheistic  critic  there 
was  a  spice  of  dictation,  as  who  should  say  "you 
must  yield  to  a  sense  of  Duty  to  Humanity."    Hard 
by  lurks  bigotry. 

Feuerbach's  inversion  of  theology,  turning  "God 
is  love,"  into  "love  is  divine,"  did  not  fascinate  me. 
I  saw  in  it  a  play  on  words.  In  my  infancy  God  was 
a  stern  fact  and  when  he  became  a  myth,  why,  love 
was — love,  not  divine ;  goodness  was  what  we  find  to 
make  for  our  good ;  that  is  to  say  there  was  nothing 
divine ;  no  such  thing  as  goodness  or  badness  except 
as  relative  to  our  welfare  and  no  better  reason  why  I 
should  not  be  a  cruel  man  than  that  I  took  no  pleas- 
ure in  cruelty,  found  no  sense  in  it. 

I  have  always  rather  pitied  those  who  run  pas- 
sionately after  the  so-called  good  things  which  Chris- 
tians and  Moralists  generally  suppose  must  be  the 
Bole  aim  of  Egoists.    What  fools  are  the  fretful  lust- 


MAX  stirner's  book.  67 

ers  after  power,  men  covetous  of  others'  goods,  toil- 
some accumulators  of  what  they  cannot  enjoy !  De- 
luded Egoists  !* 

During  the  period  I  have  mentioned  and  until  the 
spring  of  1872  I  had  no  knowledge  of  Max  Stirner's 
work,  Der  Einzige  unci  sein  Eigenthum  (The  Unit  and 
his  Property).    But  believe  me  that  I  devoured  it  so 
soon  as  I  got  hold  of  it.    There  for  the  first  time  I 
saw  most  plainly  stated,  my  own  thought,  borne  out 
by  illustrations  that  will  test  the  nerve  of  every  pro- 
fessed Egoist.    Who  but  Stirner  has  dared  to  suggest 
that  the  tie  of  blood  is  a  superstition?    Were  it  not 
that  we  have  assurance  of  the  speedy  appearance  of 
an  English  translation  of  his  great  work,  I  would 
here  give  something  of  a  summary  of  its  contents ; 
but  now,  under  the  pleasing  expectation,  I  may  con- 
fine myself  to  a  mention  of  one  feature  of  that  won- 
derful book.    The  author  shows  us  the  world  divided 
into  three  epochs :  first,  Antiquity,  in  which  men  were 
terrorized  by  the  forces  of  nature.    Second,  Christen- 
dom.   Christ  introduces  the  rule  of  the  spirit,  which 
destroys  the  fear  of  material  things,  but  establishes 
the  tyranny  of  the  Idea.    There  is  now  a  spook  in 
every  object.    Third,  the  Unit,  by  the  might  of  his 
own  understanding  and  will,  dismisses  the  spirits,  the 
spooks ;  the  rule  of  Ideas  is  broken.    The  Unit, — the 
Ego, — is  not  an  abstract  I.    He  is  you,  yourself,  just 
as  you  are  in  flesh  and  blood,  become  simply  sover- 
eign, disdainful  of  all  rule  of  Ideas,  as  Christ  was  of 
all  rule  of  material  powers. 

Of  the  author's  character  as  shown  by  his  actions 
I  will  emphasize  only  one  feature.    He  recognized  in 
the  woman  the  individual,  as  free  as  she  cares  to  be, 
precisely  as  he  did  in  the  man.    When  we  read  of  an- 
other German  author  as  Stirner's  disciple,  who  differs 
from  him  so  radically  in  this,  we  may  think  that  au- 

*A  dwarfed,  stuuted  conception  of  Egoism  finds  expression 

in  the  remark :  "  I  do  not  believe  in  self-interest.    I  would  not 
take  another  man's  job."     Indeed,  sir,  if  you  have  a  determina. 
tion  not  to  take  it  I  am  sure  you  will  not  take  it — unless  soma 
stronger  interest  of  yours  comes  into  plaj'.    We  will  wait  and 
Bee  what  you  do.    Professions  are  cheap. 


68  TYRANNY  OF  GENERAL  IDEAS. 

thoT  somewhat  of  a  plagiarist,  perhaps,  but  certainly 
not  a  disciple,  as  alleged. 

Others  again  are  springing  up  to  classify  the  Ego 
and  Egoism  in  philosophy.    The  Unit  of  Stirner  is — 
yourself,  if  you  like.    You,  as  a  person  of  flesh  and 
blood,  will  not  be  successfully  classified  in  "  philoso- 
phy," I  think,  if  you  grasp  the  idea  and  act  on  it. 
The  old  so-called  philosophic  Egoism  was  a  disquisi- 
tion on  the  common  charact-eristics  of  men,  a  sort  of 
generality.    The  real  living  Egoism  is  the  fact  of  un- 
trammeled  mind  in  this  or  that  person  and  the 
actions  resulting,  the  end  of  the  tyranny  of  general 
ideas. 


BIOGRAPHICAL. 

To  write  a  just  biographical  sketch  of  a  man  who  has  com- 
pleted the  execution  of  life-long  plans  is  hardly  possible.    To  do 
justice  at  writing  the  life  of  a  man  who  was  cut  off  by  death  at 
the  moment  of  attainment  from  the  execution  of  plans  that  had 
been  ripening  for  almost  a  lifetime,  is  quite  impossible.    In  the 
first  undertaking  when  concrete  aecomplishment  is  chronicled  there 
is  revealed  at  least  an  approximation  of  the  reach  and  depth  of 
thought  exerted;  and  the  failure  to  depict  such  a  life  task  may  be 
only  in  the  matter  of  intensity.    While  in  the  second  effort  the  fail- 
ure must  come  in  the  very  vital  point  of  inability  to  reveal  even 
the  objects  to  be  accomplished,  to  say  nothing  of  the  breadth 
reached,  depth  penetrated,  and  the  infinite  detail  encompassed  by 
the  mind  of  a  brain  now  numb  and  forever  stilled. 

The  life  work  of  James  L.  Walker  presents  this  lamentable 
difficulty.    This  poinb  can  perhaps  be  no  more  forcefully  illus- 
trated than  in  the  following  editorial  review  of  what  was  known 
of  him  and  his  life,  published  in  the  "News,"  Galveston,  Texas, 
Apr.  19,  1904,  upon  the  receipt  of  the  news  of  his  death: 

"Through  a  letter  received  yesterday  by  Mr.  Edwin  Bruce, 
secretary  of  the  Galveston  school  board,  the  News  learns  of  the 
death  of  Dr.  James  L.  Walker,  which  occurred  at  Lardo,  Mexico, 
April  2,  after  an  illness  of  sixteen  days.    Dr.  Walker  went  to  Mex- 
ico about  seven  years  aga  and  was  for  a  number  of  years  con- 
nected with  a  newspaper  at  Monterey.    The  News  understands 
that  he  studied  medicine  and  practiced  for  some  time  when  he 
was  a  young  man,  and  after  getting  out  of  the  newspaper  busi- 
ness in  Mexico  he  resumed  practice  as  a  physician.    Mr.  Walker 
was  for  many  years  connected  with  the  editorial  department  of  the 
Galveston-Dallas  News.    He  was  a  deep  thinker  and  a  forcible  wri- 
ter.   He  had  few  intellectual  equals  in  the  state.    He  belonged  to 
the  old  school  of  solid  writers,  what  the  present  generation  call 
heavy.    Those  who  knew  him  best  recognized  him  as  an  intellect- 
ual giant.    He  was  pre-eminently  a  logician  and  incidentally  a  fine 
linguist,  versed  in  dead  languages,  and  a  fluent  conversationalist 
in  half  a  dozen  modern  tongues. 

"Owing  to  his  quiet  mode  of  life,  few  knew  of  him  personally. 
He  was  a  man  who  had  little  to  say  about  himself  individually. 
This  is  demonstrated  by  the  fact  that  while  he  was  associated  for 
a  number  of  years  with  men  now  connected  with  the  News,  there  is 
not  one  of  his  former  associates  who  could  state  with  definitenesg 
as  to  his  age  or  his  nationality.    Mr.  Walker  was  always  ready  to 
discuss  any  topic  of  the  day  or  any  topic  in  history  with  the  great- 
est fluency,  but  had  little  to  say  about  his  personal  affairs.    At 
the  same  time  there  was  nothing  about  him  to  enable  one  to  call 
him  distant  or  say  he  was  too  reserved. 

"After  severing  his  connection  with  the  News  in  1895,  he  read 
law,  and  was  admitted  to  the  bar  and  practiced  at  Galveston  a 
short  time  before  he  went  to  Mexico.    Mr.  Walker  was  a  deep 


70  BIOGRAPHICAL.. 

thinker,  a  ripe  scholar  and  an  elegant  gentleman.    He  leaves  a 
wife,  who  was  with  him  at  the  time  of  his  death." 

The  writer  of  this  effort  is  handicapped  by  the  same  difficulty 
as  was  the  editor  of  the  Galveston  News ; — more  appreciation  for 
the  subject  than  knowledge  of  his  doings.    Although  there  was 
maintained  between  Mr.  Walker  on  the  one  hand,  and  Georgia 
Replogle  and  me  on  the  other,  quite  a  dozen  years  of  cone^pond- 
ence  of  such  a  confidential  nature  as  may  readily  exist  between  a 
fond  master  and  his  devoted  disciples,  and  this  was  supplemented 
by  some  months  of  daily  association,  nevertheless  not  a  sufficient 
number  of  facts  concerning  his  past  life  were  gathered  to  form 
even  a  tolerable  biography.    He  talked,  always  apparently  with- 
out reserve,  about  his  past  when  it  became  incident  to  the  conver- 
sation, and  would  doubtless  have  answered  direct  questions  con- 
cerning it,  but  no  one  even  dreamed  of  biography;  he  was  so  hale 
and  hearty,  and  withal  so  careful  of  his  health  that  he  seemed  eas- 
ily good  for  more  than  a  score  of  years.    So  the  precious  oppor- 
tunity was  lost  in  planning  for  the  future  rather  than  in  reviewing 
the  past,  which  would  so  much  better  have  served  this  need. 

Outside  of  Mr.  Walker's  work  in  the  Liberal  World,  no  bio- 
graphical information  has  been  obtained  save  this  reproduction 
of  another  article  written  by  a  personal  friend  of  his  and  pub- 
lished in  the  Galveston  News  the  day  following  the  publication  of 
the  above-quoted  editorial: 

"The  death  of  Dr.  James  L.  Walker  mentioned  in  today's 
News,  causes  sorrow  here  [Waco,  Texas,]  where  the  deceased  had 
many  friends. 

"  Dr.  Walker  was  born  in  June  1845,  at  Manchester,  England, 
of  wealthy  parents,  who  gave  him  a  libei-al  education.    After  grad- 
uating at  institutions  of  learning  in  England,  France,  and  Ger- 
manv,  he  became  connected  with  the  London  Times.    On  reaching 
the  United  States  he  became  an  associate  editor  on  the  Chicago 
Times.    In  Texas  at  various  periods  he  worked  editorially  on  the 
San  Antonia  Herald,  the  San  Antonia  Express,  the  Galveston- 
Dallas  News,  the  Austin  Statesman,  the  State  Gazette  of  Austin, 
and  other  papers.    He  was  the  author  of  works  on  stenography, 
chemistry,  medicine,  and  civil  engineering.    He  had  a  reading  and 
speaking  acquaintance  with  ten  living  languages,  and  was  profi- 
cient in  Greek,  Latin,  and  Sanskrit.    In  1865  he  w^as  wedded  to 
Katharine  Smith,  of  Illinois,  who  survives  him.    After  his  mar- 
riage he  came  to  Texas  with  his  wife,  and  before  returning  to 
newspaper  work  he  taught  in  colleges.    He  traveled  all  over  both 
hemispheres." 

Mr.  Walker's  name  was  properly,  simply  James  Walker,  the 
initial  "L"  being  adopted  in  the  exigency  of  his  mail  matter  be- 
coming confused  with  that  of  other  James  Walkers  in  some  of  the 
various  localities  in  which  he  lived.    But  as  he  was  known  as 
James  L.  Walker  to  the  Liberal  World,  by  whom  these  chapters 


BIOGRAPHICAL.  71 

will  doubtless  be  first  read  and  most  appreciated,  the  name  has 
been  so  written  in  this  booklet. 

It  was  incidentally  learned  in  conversation  with  Mr.  Walker 
that  his  Iconoclastic  and  Liberalizing  work  began  very  early  in 
life,  as  he  published  in  Chicago  a  40-column  anti-theological  paper 
and  debated  and  lectured  on  Sundays  besides,  for  almost  two 
years  prior  to  his  marriage  and  departure  for  Texas,  which  is  said 
to  have  occurred  in  1865.    The  paper  was  sustained  principally 
by  Freethinker  merchants  of  the  city;  and  although  it  gathered 
a  considerable  list  of  regular  subscribers,  the  cold,  damp  lake 
climate  affi'cted  Mr.  Walker's  lungs  and  throat  so  unfavorably 
tha.t  he  abandoned  the  enterjjrise,  and  sought  the  drier  air  and 
milder  temperature  of  the  Southwest. 

His  next  innovating  work  in  the  realm  of  Liberal  thought  was, 
as  nearly  as  memory  serves,  some  articles  on  "Conscience,"  con- 
tributed to  "Lucifer,"  at  that  time  published  at  Valley  Falls, 
Kansas.    These  articles,  if  memory  again  is  correct,  stirred  up 
very  bitter  opposition  from  some  of  the  more  emotionalistic  read- 
ers of  that  journal ;  but  they  also  carried  off  several  valuable  ad- 
herents to  the  ideas  presented. 

Again,  in  the  years  1886-7,  Mr.  Walker,  over  the  nom  de  plume 
"Tak  Kak,"  made  his  most  widely  effective  effort  in  the  propa- 
ganda of  the  new  ethics  by  means  of  some  articles  on  the  "'Duty  " 
idea,  in  "Liberty,"  the  pioneer  organ  of  Philosophical  Anarchism, 
then  published  in  Boston,  Mass.    Here,  once  more,  most  bitter 
opposition  was  aroused, practically  dividing  the  Anarchistic  camp; 
but  he  firmly  established  the  Egoistic  idea,  and  carried  with  him 
almost  all  the  readers  of  that  journal,  as  well  as  its  editor. 
Among  those  who  from  reading  this  discussion  were  led  to  em- 
brace the  Egoistic  philosophy,  were  the  projectors  and  publishers 
of  the  little  magazine  "Egoism,"  through  which  the  publication 
of  these  chapters  was  inaugurated. 

In  the  above-indicated  memorable  discussion  in  "Liberty," 
Mr.  Walker  won  the  distinctive  title  of  "Father  of  Egoism  in 
America."    Although  Dr.  Caspar  Schmidt,  a  comparatively  un- 
known author,  had  under  the  nom  de  plume  "  Max  Stirner,"  pre- 
viously written  a  masterly  and  inimitable  work  in  Germany  on  the 
philosophy,  Mr.  Walker  had  thought  out  and  s^'stemized  the  same 
in  this  country  before  he  heard  of  Stirner.    As  a  result  of  this  dis- 
cussion in  "Liberty,"  a  distinctive  and  widely -distributed  school 
of  the  greatest  solidarity  has  sprung  into  existence,  and  includes 
among  its  adherents  the  brightest  and  ablest  ethical  polemics  of 
our  time. 

In  this  discussion  or  incident  to  it,  Mr.  Walker,  in  pointing 
out  that  Anarchism  is  really  only  the  political  branch  of  Egoism 
proper,  also  earned  credit  for  suggesting  the  genealogical  and  con- 
sistently descriptive  name.  Egoistic  Anarchism,  for  the  Anarchism 
hitherto  designated  as  Philosophical  Anarchism,  to  distinguish 


4S4-03 


72  BIOGRAPHICAL. 

its  school  from  that  of  the  physical  force  revolutionists  who  also 
claim  to  be  Anarchists. 

Mr.  Walker's  next  and  last  effort  in  sociological  writing  was 
the  chapters  herein  contained.    This  was  to  be  followed  by  ati'eat- 
ise  on  Liberty; — libertj'  to  try  expedients  for  bettering  our  condi- 
tion.   There  was  then  to  be  one  on  Money — an  exchange  medium  ; 
and  another  on  Land — the  right  to  produce  a  living;  and  finally, 
Suggestions  on  Colonizing      He  entertained,  of  course,  the  same 
•  osmopolitan  economic  ideas  that  are  held  by  all  of  the  Anarch- 
istic school,  but  he  believed  that  under  present  conditions  of  wait- 
ing for  education  to  soak  into  the  masses,  and  as  an  educator 
itself,  colonization  was  highly  desirable.    One  plan  was  to  colonize 
in  cities,  in  a  given  section  if  convenient,  and  to  strive  to  achieve 
economic  independence  by  at  first  diverting  patronage  to  the 
members  of  the  colony,  and  finally  thus  establishing  mutual  in- 
dustrial hold  in  the  community  at  large.    The  other  plan  was  to 
locate  on  tlie  land  in  large  bodif  s  and  to  organize  industry  also 
on  a  purely  voluntary  basis;  the  main  idea  being  aggregation  of 
people  of  similar  views,  thus  eliminating  as  far  as  possible  the  au- 
thoritarian interference  of  Philistine  political  polity. 

Besides  these  projected  sociological  works,  Mr.  Walker  had  put 
into  manuscript,  several  years  before  his  death,  two  educational 
works.    The  nature  of  the  one  has  slipped  the  memory  altogether; 
the  other  was  a  system  of  Spanish  shorthand.    But  owing  to  the 
indifference  of  Spanish-speaking  peoples  toward  modern  methods 
in  producing  their  literature,  its  publication  was  abandoned  for 
the  time. 

Mr.  Walker  may  have  had  other  works  on  other  subjects  in  con- 
templation, but  these  were  all  that  were  learned  of  in  the  inci- 
dental manner  in  which  all  that  is  here  written  was  obtained.     He 
was  also  interested  in  telepathy,  and  in  hygienic  matters,  but  noth- 
ing was  mentioned  of  a  treatise  on  either  subject. 

During  the  years  that  Mr.  Walker  was  editorially  connected 
with  the  Galve.ston  News,  he  continuously  wrote  masterly  and 
powerful  articles  aiient  the  various  political  issues  as  they  passed. 
These  were  the  dread  of  all  contemporaries,  as  none  could  gamsay 
his  arguments,  based  as  they  were  on  the  incontrovertible  princi- 
ples of  his  philosophy.    And  it  may  be  added  that  the  Galveston 
News  was  everywhere  the  delight  and  pride  of  the  school  he  rep- 
resented, it  being  the  only  daily  paper  in  the  world  enunciating 
any  sound  economic  and  political  doctrines.    But  in  time  there 
came  an  end  to  all  this.    Finally  someone  learned  the  basis  of 
th<'se  impregnable  positions  and  informed  contemporary  papers, 
which  being  unable  to  answer  the  arguments,  started  the  mad-dog 
cry,  "Anarchy."    So,  whatever  may  have  been  the  inclination  of 
the  News  management,  the  result  was  that  Mr.  Walker  was  re- 
duced to  the  merely  mechanical  function  of  correcting  for  the  com- 
positors, copy  that  had  been  written  by  others. 


BIOGEAPHICAL.  73 

After  continuing  in  this  menial  position  for  three  years,  in- 
ducements were  held  out  by  certain  wealthy  Mexicans  and  resident 
Americans  to  come  to  Monterey,  Mex.,  and  establisli  a  Spanish- 
English  daily  newspaper.    But  by  the  time  Mr.  Walker  could 
arrive  on  the  ground,  the  enthusiasm  of  these  same  persons  had 
become  so  limp  that  he  abandoned  the  enterprise.    Thereupon  he 
started  an  English  weekly  paper  for  the  patronage  of  the  Ameri- 
can colony  numbering  about  2,000  persons.    And,  although  oper- 
ating in  a  country  in  which  every  editor  is  directly  responsible  to 
the  government  for  every  word  by  him  published,  he  created  a 
local  paper  which  in  its  scope  and  penetration  of  subjects  handled 
was  probably  never  equaled  in  any  country.    This  he  published  for 
several  years,  but  publications  cut  no  figure  with  Mexicans,  and 
Americans  located  in  Mexico  soon  become  Mexicanized  and  equally 
disinterested.    Therefore  he  dropped  publication,  and  entered 
upon  the  practice  of  medicine,  having  been  licensed  to  practict* 
years  before  in  Texas. 

In  the  year  1902,  Mr.  Walker  and  his  wife  came  to  Denver  to 
spend  the  hot  season  away  from  Mexico.    It  was  upon  this  occa- 
sion that  the  writer  was  favored  with  the  personal  acquaintance 
of  this  man  whom  he  learned  to  reverence  and  love  more  than 
any  other  man  he  ever  met.    And,  when  the  annulling  blow  of  life 
fell,  he  would  have  fled  to  the  arms  of  this  fatherly  and  brotherly 
master,  even  as  the  dismayed  child  flees  to  its  mother;  but  alas, 
fate  had  carefully  destroyed  the  balm  many  days  before  she  laid 
agape  the  wound. 

In  the  latter  part  of  that  year  Mr.  Walker  returned  to  Mexico 
to  dispose  of  his  effects  there,  then  to  visit  the  St.  Louis  exposi- 
tion in  1904,  and  from  there  to  locate  somewhei*e  in  the  United 
States.    The  disposal  of  his  effects  had  been  accomplished,  and  he 
was  about  to  leave  Mexico,  when  he  was  overtaken  by  the  inevita- 
ble monster.    He  had  passed  through  the  yellow  fever  epidemic 
in  Monterey  that  year,  but  not  without  being  attacked.    How- 
ever, he  succeeded  in  breaking  the  fever,  and  had  so  far  recovered 
as  to  be  about  to  return  to  the  United  States  preparatory  to  car- 
rying out  his  original  plans,  when  he  changed  his  mind,  believing 
it  better  to  travel  with  his  wife  in  the  interior  of  Mexico,  pursuant 
of  some  business  there  until  the  weather  should  be  warmer  at  the 
North.    He  was  still  weak  from  the  depletion  of  the  fever  when 
unfortunately  he  and  his  wife  ran  unwarned  into  epidemic  small- 
pox.   They  fled  immediately  to  a  back  town,  hoping  to  escape  the 
contagion,  but  all  in  vain;  it  had  already  fastened  upon  the  weak- 
ened man.    And  although  Mr.  Walker  was  himself  an  Allopathic 
practitioner,  and  therefore  more  or  less  committed  to  heroic  meth- 
ods of  treatment,  he  knew  so  well  the  ideas  and  practice  of  Mexi- 
can doctors  that  he  feared  their  medication  more  than  the  disease. 
So  the  next  effort  was  an  attempt  to  conceal  his  condition,  in  or- 
der to  evade  the  rigorous  medication  of  the  authorities.    But  this 
also  failed,  and  this  precious  man  was  seized  by  Mexican  officials 


74  BIOGRAPHICAL. 

and  carried  to  a  native  "hospital;"  and,  of  course,  doped  to  his 
death  with  the  regulation  life-extinguisher  of  the  authoritarian 
State  that  he  had  fought  with  his  most  powerful  ammunition  dur- 
ing most  of  the  best  years  of  his  life. 

He  had  succeeded  in  pulling  himself  through  a  much  more  se- 
vere malady  in  the  instance  of  the  yellow  fever  attack,  when  he 
was  in  his  own  home  and  amid  acquaintanceship  that  allowed  him 
his  own  medical  resources.    And,  he  probably  would  have  suc- 
ceeded again  with  this  less  malignant  affiiction  if  he  had  not  been 
subjected  to  the  excitement  of  seizure  at  a  critical  stage  of  the 
affection  and  thereafter  to  the  iron-clad  usage  of  a  prisoner. 

His  wife  was  permitted  to  remain  by  his  side  and  do  all  that 
might  be  done,  but  unfortunately  this  did  not  include  kicking  out 
the  Mexican  doctor  with  his  regulation  decoctions  that  the  deli- 
cate constitution  of  the  victim  could  not  combat.    He  suffered 
great  agony  and  was  delirious  much  of  the  time;  recovering  con- 
sciousness, however,  a  few  hours  before  his  death  clearly  enough 
torealizethe  situation, for.callinghiswifeto him, he  said:  "We  can't 
overcome  this."    And  thus  she  was  left  to  part  alone  from  this 
immeasurable  soul  in  that  barbaric  land; — even  forced  to  leave 
all  that  was  left  to  her  of  him,  lying  in  the  midst  of  the  wretched 
beasts  whose  sloven  lives  had  poisoned  away  the  adored  being 
who  meant  all  to  her  that  existence  meant. 

The  grave  was  protected  against  the  Mexican  habit  of  burying 
over  the  same  ground  again  and  again,  by  deeply-laid  concrete 
surmounted  by  a  strong  iron  enclosure  embedded  in  this  concrete. 
According  to  Mexican  law  the  remains,  after  five  years  burial,  may 
be  removed.    This  will  probably  be  done  by  the  devoted  wife. 

It  is  said  above  that  Mrs.  Walker  was  left  to  "part  alone," 
etc.    Figuratively,  this  is  true;  literally,  not.    There  happened  to 
be  one  American  in  a  nearby  town  who,  fortunately,  was  an  ac- 
quaintance, and  being  summoned  at  the  last,  aidijd  so  far  as  lay 
in  his  power  to  the  end  of  this  calamitous  tragedy. 

Mr.  Walker  was  an  ideal  Egoist.     While  he  taught  the  doc- 
trines of  equity  wherever  the  subject  was  seasonable,  (and  the 
humblest  novice  could  be  no  more  ready  at  all  times  than  he  to 
do  a  full  share  in  associative  effort  "with  his  own  kind) ;  neverthe- 
less he  permitted  the  Philistine  World  to  pay  him  all  the  homage 
and  tribute  it  cared  to.    He  sacrificed  none  of  his  strength  pro- 
miscuously upon  the  altar  of  equality  to  the  unappreciative  un- 
equal,—as  is  the  wont  of  the  evangelistic  enthusiast.    Toward 
earnest  persons  of  his  own  general  social  ideal,  he  might  "over- 
flow," as  he  has  so  aptly,  forcefully,  and  yet  incidentally  put  in  an 
early  chapter,  but  always  with  an  eye  to  a  rational  limit;— one 
which  in  his  own  mind,  incurred  no  obligation  on  the  part  of  the 
person  thus  favored.    It  was  his  idea  that  in  co-operative  effort, 
the  directors  of  work,  or  "bosses,"  should  not  generally  receive 
greater  compensation  than  the  manual  workers  in  the  same  line, 
Bince  the  opportunities  for  relaxation  would  compensate  them  for 


BIOGRAPHICAL.  75 

the  greater  value  of  their  services  rendered  to  the  body  at  large. 

In  association  Mr.  Walker  was  of  the  most  lovable  of  men ; 
calm,  courteous,  profound,  and  yet  humorous  upon  occasion,  but 
never  light.    In  conversation,  every  proposition  was  an  appeal  to 
reason ;  there  was  no  cramming  of  the  assumptions  of  authority 
down  the  mental  throat.    He  was  as  spontaneously  in  touch  with 
the  spirit  of  the  occasion  in  the  hovel,  as  with  that  in  the  drawing- 
room.    He  regarded  the  varying  conditions  of  the  rich  man  and 
the  poor  man  with  that  same  consideration  which  unlike  neigh- 
bors might  each  elicit  from  him.    He  made  no  wry  faces  at  the 
inconveniences  of  the  poor,  nor  did  he  fawn  over  the  luxury  of  the 
rich.    Neither  was  there  fanatical  rebuke  manifested  against  the 
commander  of  opulence.    He  elucidated  at  as  great  length  and 
with  the  same  interest  to  the  one  as  to  the  other.    What  he  im- 
parted, or  what  he  gave,  was  given  with  the  air  of  a  prince.    There 
was  none  of  the  awful  griping  that  is  evinced  by  the  Moralist 
when  he  does  one  of  his  "Duty  "  stunts,  which  seems  to  have  cost 
him  more  than  it  ever  could  be  worth  to  any  other  person. 

In  bearing  Mr.  Walker  was  dignified  without  a  suggestion  of 
austerity,  or  of  snobbishness.    Tall,  and  erect  in  carriage,  muscular 
and  athletic,  he  was  sure  to  attract  that  attention  which  melts 
into  admiration.    His  language,  while  absolutely  correct,  flowed 
without  a  tinge  of  the  strain  of  pedagogic  discipline  so  conspicu- 
ous in  the  conversation  of  the  majority  of  "educated"  people. 
All  who  enjoyed  his  confidence  and  won  his  interest  must  over  re- 
gret that  the  pleasant  hours  of  relaxation  and  conversation  are 
never  to  be  repeated. 

Never  shall  I  forget  the  last  evening  spent  with  this  gen- 
uinely great  unknown.    He  came  out  to  my  bleak  little  suburban 
home,  where  we  spent  the  evening  alone,  and  under  the  stimulus 
of  the  parting  occasion  and  all  the  final  things  being  felt  and 
said,  he  seemed  more  magnificent  than  ever  in  his  imperial  democ- 
racy and  embracing  comradeship.    It  was  a  balmy  night  with 
the  clearest  of  Colorado's  clear  skies  and  the  brightest  of  her 
moonlight,  and  as  we  sat  in  the  still  open,  the  homogeneity  of  the 
scene;— the  great  sky,  the  vast  plain,  and  the  great  man,  fairly 
assaulted  even  my  usually  pre-occupied  senses. 

It  was  Mr.  Walker's  purpose  to  accumulate  at  least  a  moder- 
ately independent  fortune,  before  launching  into  a  considerable 
effort  of  sociological  and  other  innovating  writings.    This  part  of 
his  program  was  fairly  well  accomplished,  when  the  Galveston 
flood  came,  obliterating  much  of  his  holdings  altogether;  there 
being  a  considerable  portion  of  it  at  the  bottom  of  the  sea  when 
the  tidal  wave  subsided.    So  he  probably  would  have  devoted  at 
least  a  few  more  years  to  repairing  so  far  as  possible  the  breach  in 
his  fortune,  before  uncovering  his  light  to  the  world  of  dungeoned 
mentality.    But,  alasl !* 

*This  sketch  should,  fittingly,  have  been  written  by  Benj.  R. 

Tucker,  previously  referred  to  as  the  editor  of  "Liberty."    Mr. 


76  BIOGRAPHICAL. 

Walker  had  no  warmer  friend  or  greater  admirer  than  Mr.  Tucker, 
who  possesses  in  a.ddition,  the  advantages  of  scholarship  and  lit- 
erary training,  so  necessary  in  comprehensively  and  lucidly  cele- 
brating so  worthy  a  subject.    But  Mr.  Tucker  was  abroad,  and 
the  date  of  his  probable  return  unknown.    Moreover,  the  publica- 
tion of  the  booklet  at  this  time  seemed  very  urgent,  inasmuch  as 
the  details  of  the  work  were  in  such  a  shape  that  no  one  besides 
me  could  well  perform  the  task.    My  health,  also,  was  in  such  a 
precarious  condition  that  life  itself  was  unusually  uncertain.    For 
this  reason  Mrs.  Walker  was  naturally  very  anxious  to  com- 
plete the  work  while  it  was  still' ])ussible.    So  I  undertook  the 
sketch  myself,  hoping  to  redeem  it  in  a  future  edition  with  one 
written  bj^  the  proper  person.    This  one  has  been  written  between 
rounds  of  oiling  and  inspection,  while  on  duty  in  the  engine-room 
of  a  steam  plant,  and  without  access  to  any  data  save  those  sup- 
plied by  memory,  possibly  badly  blurred  by  psychical  prostra- 
tion.   The  whole  was  then  corrected  to  approximately  the  pres- 
ent shape  by  the  kindly  aid  of  some  friends. 

Henby  Reploglb. 


ll'^l'ill 


:ii: 


